MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Am I the only one annoyed by this BS on SS  (Read 10830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« on: November 10, 2010, 04:12 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-51601363/stock-vector--colorful-vertical-business-cards.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-35761129/stock-vector-business-cards-set.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-43666900/stock-vector-mega-collection-of-abstract-corporate-business-card.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-52450132/stock-vector-colorful-vertical-business-cards.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34112197/stock-vector-various-business-card.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-31361674/stock-vector-various-business-card.html
I mean what you feel greedy asking for 30 something cents per image you have to cram dozens into each file?
It's getting to where we're just competing on quantity of stuff you can squeeze into one file rather then on the quality of the images.
No other site would put up with it, but then again SS wants to minimize our payouts so they can keep the subs money to themselves. The opposite of non sub sites where they want to maximize our sales.


« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2010, 04:35 »
0
Would you rather have three sets that sell for $60 in total in a year, or would you rather have $500 in a year by putting them in one?
That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity.
You don't have to put 100 business cards in a set, but if you want to compete with the rest of the industry it's a good idea to do so

And I just found large sets at Fotolia and BigStock as well.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2010, 05:08 »
0
"That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity."

that pretty much defeats the micro modell, game over.

Microbius

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2010, 05:26 »
0
Would you rather have three sets that sell for $60 in total in a year, or would you rather have $500 in a year by putting them in one?
That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity.
You don't have to put 100 business cards in a set, but if you want to compete with the rest of the industry it's a good idea to do so

And I just found large sets at Fotolia and BigStock as well.

If they would put a limit on the number of elements in one file you wouldn't have to combine them to make the same amount of money. You could be making $500 on each of the three sets. Remember that the buyers don't use all their downloads (if they did the subs model would collapse). There's no marginal cost for them in downloading the three files rather than the one.
All cramming files does is put more money into the hands of the agency and less into yours (and your fellow contributors)
Where's it going to end, because trust me there are people living in parts of the world where they can afford to make a lot less than you on each of those dozens of elements your are jamming into your files.
It's  short-termism in the extreme.

Microbius

« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2010, 05:31 »
0
....and it's becoming the standard there now. How long do you think there will be an advantage to stuffing files when everyone does it. You'll be making that $60 for $500 dollars work.

« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2010, 07:34 »
0
Quote
Would you rather have three sets that sell for $60 in total in a year, or would you rather have $500 in a year by putting them in one?
That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity.
You don't have to put 100 business cards in a set, but if you want to compete with the rest of the industry it's a good idea to do so

And I just found large sets at Fotolia and BigStock as well.

Hi Thomas, Think your statement through. What is a business card? What does it do? Who is likely to need one? How many do they need? Would you want your business card to be the same as someone else's? Who are likely to be the biggest buyers of microstock? How will they react to seeing these files at this price point?

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2010, 07:56 »
0
RF = paycut
micro modell = huge paycut
subscriptions = large paycut
stuffing several images into one = self-paycut
microstock = idiot magnet
:)

I'v got a brand new idea that will make microstock totally obsolete: the pat-on-the-shoulder model. No payment whatsoever... much more better: the enthusiastic amateurs will get automated email compliments for downloads:

- 'Your image has caught somebone's eye! Impressive!'
- 'Someone thinks your shot is way cool! You are a cool photographer!'
- 'They like your shot! Way to go man!!'
- 'Something somewhere features your great shot! Sooner or later you will be famous! Keep shooting, great stuff!'
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 08:27 by molka »

« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2010, 08:09 »
0
I'v got a brand new idea that will make microstock totally obsolete: the tap-on-the-shoulder model.
You obviously missed Flickr.

helix7

« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2010, 08:27 »
0
...It's getting to where we're just competing on quantity of stuff you can squeeze into one file rather then on the quality of the images.
No other site would put up with it, but then again SS wants to minimize our payouts so they can keep the subs money to themselves. The opposite of non sub sites where they want to maximize our sales.

How is this any different from what SS has always been? SS is not like any other agency and they accept and reject files on a very different set of criteria than other sites. SS accepts web page templates, for example, while few other sites accept them. And these business card files are nothing new. People have been value-packing images (both photos and vectors) at SS for years.

The reason people do it (and the reason I have files just like these) is that they sell. Period. They're worth the time and effort, because you make good money selling them. Trust me, the artists creating these business card files are not losing out.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2010, 08:36 »
0
I'v got a brand new idea that will make microstock totally obsolete: the tap-on-the-shoulder model.
You obviously missed Flickr.

 I'v got requests for single publication usage of my shots on flicker (pratically like rm) and I charged 100 $ or more each time, they payed those wihtout a single complaint. That's 400 or 277 SS downloads f.e. Besides flickr is a nice place without the that repulsive aura of constatly screwing people. : ) It even has better keywording system than microjunk sites, ain't that ridiculous

admin edit: removed needless name calling
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 09:50 by leaf »

« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2010, 08:51 »
0
Quote
oh man you'r a dumb little prick.

Molka, while I agree with most of the comments you've made on this page, I feel compelled to pull you up on that one. FD makes some very sharp observations in these forums and has a very healthy sense of humour too.

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2010, 09:06 »
0
I see Microbius' point on this.  It is probably detrimental to the industry to cram so much value into one microstock image.  Like micrstock isn't already priced cheaply enough?

But like so many other things that are going downhill in this industry, it doesn't seem there's much we can do about it.  And I do see collages are lucrative for the people who upload them. 

To be honest, it might make sense doing that with a group of older, no-longer-selling images to squeeze some extra sales out of them.  At some point I may try it myself with some older series that are nearing the end of their run.

You know how it is - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.   :-\

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2010, 09:10 »
0
I hope Molka's being ironic, FD-regular's one of the smartest guys on these boards, and that definitely includes you molka.

@helix. I just spent quite a while typing a response to you and the ****ing site went down so I lost it!
To cut a long post short. Yes of course they sell. Why wouldn't they? but long term it's only in interests of SS not you or other contributor's to compete on quantity rather then quality.
I don't blame you or others for doing it, no one's going to act for the greater good in business. I do blame SS for letting it happen, but then they do want to minimize downloads. I just don't like to see so many people play into their hands.

ETA: thanks Lisa, yes I agree. You can't stop others doing it so it makes good business sense to do it too. Buyers are going to buy less and less of the non-stuffed files.
It also is probably one of the factors contributing to the decrease in numbers of sales at SS since about 2008.

rubyroo

« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2010, 09:20 »
0
SS accepts web page templates, for example

I didn't know that.

Any idea of their acceptance criteria for web page templates?

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2010, 09:21 »
0
Quote
oh man you'r a dumb little prick.

Molka, while I agree with most of the comments you've made on this page, I feel compelled to pull you up on that one. FD makes some very sharp observations in these forums and has a very healthy sense of humour too.

I see him trying to play the smartass and a the great photographer (giving great advice about photography). he's none. very annoying, sorry. I have to say I'm a bit fed up with this net phenomenom of self absorbed people handing out advice, who actually need advice themselves. They always find victims in total novices, and do all the damage they can. Now that's not a big deal on places like youtube, etc, bit it is painfull to see among newcomers seemigly all stressed out about their photography... they come to the worst possible place to be measured, by the worst kind of standards. Projectile vomit stuff for me. Everyone coming to photography should be introduced to it being a noble art form, and what do they get... dragged down to produce ultravivid puke by someone who's greatest achievement is doing just that. Horror. Yeah, I am pissed about that, anyone may shoot all the microjunk he/she wants as long as they know it's a pile o' sheit with some rare exceptions, and don't present it as top level photography to be measured against. But they do that, all the time. End of rant, I'll get on working : ))

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2010, 09:26 »
0
To my knowledge FD-regular has never claimed to be a great or knowledgeable photographer or guru type.
He does know a bit about the market, a lot about computing/ the internet/ programming, literature and the world in general.
This makes his posts both interesting and informative, whether you agree with him or not.

rubyroo

« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2010, 09:28 »
0
Yeah... you carry on FD.  I enjoy your posts.  :)


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2010, 09:38 »
0
Molka has a long running feud with FD that has nothing to do with this thread or its subject matter. 

FD had some sort of altercation with one of molka's many previous identities.  FD is also one of the few who has been able to consistently spot him no matter which of his many trolling incarnations he masquerades behind -  perseus, lefty, batman, tanjomast10,hali, molka, etc., etc., etc.  Honestly, there have been so many it's getting harder and harder to remember them all  ::)

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2010, 09:41 »
0
Molka has a long running feud with FD that has nothing to do with this thread or its subject matter. 

FD had some sort of altercation with one of molka's many previous identities.  FD is also one of the few who has been able to consistently spot him no matter which of his many trolling incarnations he masquerades behind -  perseus, lefty, batman, tanjomast10,hali, molka, etc., etc., etc.  Honestly, there have been so many it's getting harder and harder to remember them all  ::)

this the only nick and the only timespan that I'v been on this forum, ever

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2010, 09:50 »
0
To my knowledge FD-regular has never claimed to be a great or knowledgeable photographer or guru type.
He does know a bit about the market, a lot about computing/ the internet/ programming, literature and the world in general.
This makes his posts both interesting and informative, whether you agree with him or not.

never claims, none of thes guys do, just constantly acts like that. that's enough for me. Some of these guys even 'publish' ebooks on photo and PP, sitting on top of a gelleries with at best mediocre snaphots, and go around calling out 'listen up noobs...' kinda things. They always find a plenty of novices to mislead... juts makes my eyes bleed, what a farce : ((((((((

« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2010, 09:57 »
0
I mean what you feel greedy asking for 30 something cents per image you have to cram dozens into each file?

I'd actually brought this up a couple times recently in the illustrator forums on SS. It does seem a little concerning when you see so many images in one file. I guess it has been going on for a while, but it makes you wonder what the future of SS is sometimes. They seem to be the wild west of micro sites.

helix7

« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2010, 10:03 »
0
I see Microbius' point on this.  It is probably detrimental to the industry to cram so much value into one microstock image.  Like micrstock isn't already priced cheaply enough?

But like so many other things that are going downhill in this industry, it doesn't seem there's much we can do about it...

I have to disagree, Lisa. For two reasons. First, I think buyers are savvy enough to know real value when they see it, which is why my set of 8 business cards sells better than my set of 32. I put more time into the set of 8, they are better quality, nicer designs, and buyers recognize that. I think buyers will still always go for the single better image than the collected mediocre images.

Second, I don't think you can apply the same logic to SS that you'd apply to other agencies when it comes to perceived image value. It's not like most buyers at SS even use up their daily quota of downloads, so they're not gaining much by downloading these value-packed image sets. If these large sets of business cards were available at iStock, then sure I'd say the buyer is getting more value than they should for the price of the file. But at SS, there's not much difference to buyers if they download 4 files with 8 images in each file, or 1 file with 32 images in it. And since these files are pretty much only accepted at SS, I think that any harm that this potentially does to the industry is insignificant.

I also think this topic is a slippery slope when it comes to the quantity of elements in a file, or how many elements are considered acceptable by the community and at what point it's considered too many elements. What about icon sets? How many icons are reasonable in a set? You can get a single icon accepted at SS, so is it damaging the industry to pack multiple icons into a set? Should we be selling icons individually instead of in sets?

The problem is that for a lot of things, business cards and icons included, you won't make much money selling them individually, but selling them in large quantities can be considered damaging to the industry. Not sure we'd ever come to a consensus as a community on how many elements in a file is considered reasonable.

jbarber873

« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2010, 10:14 »
0
I see Microbius' point on this.  It is probably detrimental to the industry to cram so much value into one microstock image.  Like micrstock isn't already priced cheaply enough?

But like so many other things that are going downhill in this industry, it doesn't seem there's much we can do about it.  And I do see collages are lucrative for the people who upload them. 

To be honest, it might make sense doing that with a group of older, no-longer-selling images to squeeze some extra sales out of them.  At some point I may try it myself with some older series that are nearing the end of their run.

You know how it is - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.   :-\


  No Lisa! Not you too!   :o   I had a series of military medals that i shot for a medical brochure aimed at veterans, so i decided to upload a few of them. Dreamstime rejected them unless I would put them all in one photo. I can't print my response to them without a lot of &!#*! . Shutterstock took them individually , and they sell all the time. My feeling is that the file price is cheap enough already, and I'm not going to give 2 for the price of 1.

Microbius

« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2010, 10:26 »
0
Second, I don't think you can apply the same logic to SS that you'd apply to other agencies when it comes to perceived image value. It's not like most buyers at SS even use up their daily quota of downloads, so they're not gaining much by downloading these value-packed image sets.

This is really my point. All you are doing is putting more money into SS's pockets and less into ours. They could equally download them as three or four sets instead of one massive one. More downloads for us, less surplus for SS.

I also think this topic is a slippery slope when it comes to the quantity of elements in a file, or how many elements are considered acceptable by the community and at what point it's considered too many elements. What about icon sets? How many icons are reasonable in a set? You can get a single icon accepted at SS, so is it damaging the industry to pack multiple icons into a set? Should we be selling icons individually instead of in sets?

The problem is that for a lot of things, business cards and icons included, you won't make much money selling them individually, but selling them in large quantities can be considered damaging to the industry. Not sure we'd ever come to a consensus as a community on how many elements in a file is considered reasonable.
It isn't damaging to the industry, it's great for SS and great for the buyers. The only ones it's damaging are the contributors.
No one's saying that there should be a  consensus, only that SS should impose a limit. I haven't really heard anyone up in arms about the limits set by, for example, IStock.
At the extreme end, why not upload individual icons, as you say, it wont cost the buyers any more, they don't use their downloads any way.

vonkara

« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2010, 10:27 »
0
I wonder how many hours there is in those images, and what are the returns... sigh

« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2010, 10:43 »
0
A business cards and an icon set are completely different things. The latter has the word 'set' after it and that should give you a clue as to where I'm coming from.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2010, 11:06 »
0
I don't have sets of business cards on SS, but I can see where helix7 is coming from. More than likely a buyer would buy a set of these cards rather than individual cards. It doesn't take a whole lot of work to create them either. I don't think these sets are taking money out of the other contributors pockets either. I think if the buyer sees a design he likes in a set he'll buy it rather it was a single design or multiple. It still adds up to one sale and if the contributor is happy with that then so be it.


« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2010, 12:17 »
0
I'm not worried whether it's one business card, eight business cards or thirty-two business cards; I'm worried that it's business cards.

Selling business cards under the microstock model is as dumb as selling ready-made, made-to-measure suits by mail order.

helix7

« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2010, 13:20 »
0
I'm not worried whether it's one business card, eight business cards or thirty-two business cards; I'm worried that it's business cards.

Selling business cards under the microstock model is as dumb as selling ready-made, made-to-measure suits by mail order.

How is selling ready-made business cards any worse than selling ready-made photos or illustrations? Sure a custom-designed business card is always ideal, but so is a custom-made illustration or photo. Microstock fulfills the need to get these things cheaper, so ready-made and royalty-free is the way this all works.

It may be dumb to you, but these images don't take much time to make and they sell. It may seem ridiculous that they sell, but for whatever reason, they do. Should I care that they completely miss the mark in terms of design utility for many of the people who download them? Maybe. But it's not my job to care. I have to create images that sell, specifically images that don't take very long to make and will generate a few hundred dollars per year for me, and these business cards satisfy those requirements.

« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2010, 13:46 »
0
Quote
Should I care that they completely miss the mark in terms of design utility for many of the people who download them? Maybe. But it's not my job to care.

I wish you the very best of luck with your future endeavours.

helix7

« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2010, 14:05 »
0
I wish you the very best of luck with your future endeavours.

I'm still hoping you might care to explain to me how you figure that selling business card templates (even single business card templates) is any worse for the microstock business than selling photographs.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 14:08 by helix7 »

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: November 10, 2010, 14:22 »
0
Maybe I was misinterpreting the original post.  I assumed that microbius' complaint wasn't just about business card sets (although that's what was linked).  

My comments were directed more generally at the trend I see on ALL the sites for people to combine many images into one.  These include food shots, objects on white, portrait sets, etc.  I have seen many of these collages on DT, Istock, and Fotolia, as well as SS.  

As jbarber873 pointed out, Dreamstime has even suggested to contributors that they put similar images into collages instead of uploading them individually.  

As I said above, I would ONLY consider doing that with series that are old and have stopped bringing in sales individually. IMHO, it would be career suicide to do it with new series that haven't had the opportunity to sell on their own and recover the expenses from the shoot.  

« Reply #32 on: November 10, 2010, 14:28 »
0
This is terrible and it absolutely devalues the creative industry. Designers, illustrators, photographers are all artists. I cant see how much cheaper you can whore your (mediocre) talents out for. I dont even agree to the SS subscription model and seeing this makes me angry.  Never mind that the samples shown are quick simple to make designs thats probably ripped off from somewhere else online. What it does is to increase general perception that creativity isnt worth much. The untrained eye which is the general public cant tell the difference between a good business card and a great business card. Same thing goes for a logo.. its branding.. its thought... creativity... now packaged up in 32 pieces for a couple of cents...

Who buys all this anyway??? people who will sell it somewhere else

end rant...

jbarber873

« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2010, 16:26 »
0
I wish you the very best of luck with your future endeavours.

I'm still hoping you might care to explain to me how you figure that selling business card templates (even single business card templates) is any worse for the microstock business than selling photographs.

    Most of my designer clients are perfectly happy to buy stock instead of commissioning a shoot when they can get something they can work with ( read: fix or manipulate in photoshop). When photoshop came out, you didn't have to have the skills that film photographers spent years learning, you just needed to put a filter here, or clone that. Well, the same thing goes for Illustrator or Indesign. If you want to be a designer, you can skip the art school and just buy the program. What- it's not the same? Designers have the taste and sensitivity to choose the right font, make the ruled line just the right size and color? Sorry, MarkFGD. Live by the sword, die by the sword. ALL creative work comes out of a box now. Put away those markers, throw away your pica ruler- you'll never smell rubber cement again! Just like I'll never touch fixer, or load a sheet of film in the dark. You have to deal with now, not then.

Microbius

« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2010, 16:41 »
0
Maybe I was misinterpreting the original post.  I assumed that microbius' complaint wasn't just about business card sets (although that's what was linked).  

My comments were directed more generally at the trend I see on ALL the sites for people to combine many images into one.  These include food shots, objects on white, portrait sets, etc.  I have seen many of these collages on DT, Istock, and Fotolia, as well as SS. 

No not a misinterpretation, spot on. That is what I was referring to.
All the examples I used happened to be business cards because I clicked on one then the similars came up at the bottom of the page.

It is a lot worse on Shutterstock, because they want to minimise the number of downloads a buyer uses.
Sites that make most of their income on PPD will want the buyer to make more purchases.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 16:45 by Microbius »

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2010, 17:09 »
0

It is a lot worse on Shutterstock, because they want to minimise the number of downloads a buyer uses.
Sites that make most of their income on PPD will want the buyer to make more purchases.

Makes sense^^

And thanks for the clarification.  :)

« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2010, 00:44 »
0
I wonder how many hours there is in those images, and what are the returns... sigh
How many hours on an image that never sells?  How many of us have portfolios with lots and lots of submissions that never sell once?  Were they a waste of time and effort?

The sad fact is that this industry is all about individual artists... Almost nobody makes any 'business decision' based on what's best for everyone.  Otherwise iStock couldn't get away with what they are doing... And no agency would have a sustainable subscription model, because artists would have quit them the instant their subscriptions programs started.  The fact is, artists are doing whatever they feel is necessary to sell their images.  Very few (if any) are taking other artists into account in their decisions.

The whole industry is going to crap and we (myself included) are all whining about it, but we're still contributing and still following trends that sell, even if it's another trend that makes things worse for artists as a group.  All we can do is vent in threads like this one and move on...


« Reply #37 on: November 11, 2010, 01:08 »
0
Quote
oh man you'r a dumb little prick.
Molka, while I agree with most of the comments you've made on this page, I feel compelled to pull you up on that one. FD makes some very sharp observations in these forums and has a very healthy sense of humour too.
Ah that's the one that Tyler removed. I heard worse.  ;)
Of course Molka had 100$ sales on Flickr, I take his word for it. His portfolio is all over so we can check it all for ourselves.  ;D

« Reply #38 on: November 11, 2010, 02:32 »
0
It seems that some people actually enjoy degrading their work. Those guys could upload those cards to printbusinesscards.com and really earn some nice money. Minimum sale for 1 card there is $5, and with only 40-something cards I had several sales. One of the sales was for $25.

« Reply #39 on: November 11, 2010, 04:26 »
0
....and it's becoming the standard there now. How long do you think there will be an advantage to stuffing files when everyone does it. You'll be making that $60 for $500 dollars work.

Untill the day comes where it doesn't pay off for the individual contributor anymore. It's pretty self-regulating I guess.
The business cards is just as much a trend imo as the wave of colorful abstract images that flooded SS just recently, there were close on 20 of these images in the top 50 at one time, then it levelled off as people went to discover new gold veins in microstock.

Just as helix, I believe buyers are intelligent enough to tell crap apart from quality. And if they aren't, then what's wrong with competing on quantity? We have to give the buyers what they want, right? If they want quantity, they'll get quantity.

« Reply #40 on: November 11, 2010, 04:33 »
0
Quote
Would you rather have three sets that sell for $60 in total in a year, or would you rather have $500 in a year by putting them in one?
That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity.
You don't have to put 100 business cards in a set, but if you want to compete with the rest of the industry it's a good idea to do so

And I just found large sets at Fotolia and BigStock as well.

Hi Thomas, Think your statement through. What is a business card? What does it do? Who is likely to need one? How many do they need? Would you want your business card to be the same as someone else's? Who are likely to be the biggest buyers of microstock? How will they react to seeing these files at this price point?

No, I wouldn't want my business cards to be the same as someone else's. If others can accept that, they can go to Shutterstock and buy a collection for pennies, while being aware that it's a non-exclusive collection. Otherwise, they'll have to pay for a custom design. What's the problem?
How will they react to seeing these files at this price point ? I don't know, what is your point? Will they explode? Close their accounts and blog about it? I don't know, do you have a theory ?  ???


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3426 Views
Last post May 16, 2010, 15:12
by Microbius

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors