MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: down the toilet  (Read 79561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: February 26, 2017, 03:21 »
+3
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?


« Reply #276 on: February 26, 2017, 04:21 »
+1
Actually the problem is not small time photographers producing a few pics from their holidays, who no doubt your images are far superior to but the "serious" producers producing thousands of images with almost indiscernible differences from whats already there.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #277 on: February 26, 2017, 04:39 »
0
A reason for doing no.1 would be to make it sustainable for producers so ss can also stay in business. The problem is that the amateur uploading snaps today is the skilled pro of tomorrow. If they don't get a chance to develop collections will stagnate.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #278 on: February 26, 2017, 04:39 »
+1
Actually the problem is not small time photographers producing a few pics from their holidays, who no doubt your images are far superior to but the "serious" producers producing thousands of images with almost indiscernible differences from whats already there.

This is very true!  but there are still tons of just " rubbish" and sister-images coming in and just there for the sake of quantity.

« Reply #279 on: February 26, 2017, 04:56 »
+3
A reason for doing no.1 would be to make it sustainable for producers so ss can also stay in business. The problem is that the amateur uploading snaps today is the skilled pro of tomorrow. If they don't get a chance to develop collections will stagnate.
I haven't noticed SS having a shortage of images or contributors ...surely the objective for SS should be to maximise income by delivering a search that meets buyers needs not trying to rig it to suit some producers...isn't that exactly what many complain about now? But its OK if it favours them?

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #280 on: February 26, 2017, 05:39 »
+2
A reason for doing no.1 would be to make it sustainable for producers so ss can also stay in business. The problem is that the amateur uploading snaps today is the skilled pro of tomorrow. If they don't get a chance to develop collections will stagnate.
I haven't noticed SS having a shortage of images or contributors ...surely the objective for SS should be to maximise income by delivering a search that meets buyers needs not trying to rig it to suit some producers...isn't that exactly what many complain about now? But its OK if it favours them?
I agree it would be counter productive. They just need to tighten reviews across the board. If someone is c**p they need to just be kicked from the site not be pushed back in searches. I was just saying what one of the reasons behind it could be.

They will have the volume either way, but if it isn't profitable to spend dollars on high value shoots or time producing decent illustrations their volume will be made up of snap shot garbage photos and millions of repeat icons.

« Reply #281 on: February 26, 2017, 06:07 »
+2
A reason for doing no.1 would be to make it sustainable for producers so ss can also stay in business. The problem is that the amateur uploading snaps today is the skilled pro of tomorrow. If they don't get a chance to develop collections will stagnate.
I haven't noticed SS having a shortage of images or contributors ...surely the objective for SS should be to maximise income by delivering a search that meets buyers needs not trying to rig it to suit some producers...isn't that exactly what many complain about now? But its OK if it favours them?
I agree it would be counter productive. They just need to tighten reviews across the board. If someone is c**p they need to just be kicked from the site not be pushed back in searches. I was just saying what one of the reasons behind it could be.

They will have the volume either way, but if it isn't profitable to spend dollars on high value shoots or time producing decent illustrations their volume will be made up of snap shot garbage photos and millions of repeat icons.
Agreed along with better search engines that ensure the "best" and a variety images are near the front not dominated by a group of very similar images. I think illustrators may have it even worse than photographers where sometimes there are literary thousands of very similar images.....I finf it hard to imagine people make money like that but I guess they must.

« Reply #282 on: February 26, 2017, 06:08 »
0
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?

They already do No. 1 for a Select number of top earners.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #283 on: February 26, 2017, 06:21 »
0
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?

They already do No. 1 for a Select number of top earners.
The only site I know that does that is DP, do have any evidence for SS doing it?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #284 on: February 26, 2017, 06:50 »
+1
If an image is of a high enough quality, and perfectly suits a buyers needs, then why would they care who has made it and how much time they invest in creating stock?

I can maybe understand high sellers coming above others in the results, but if it's just based on hobbyist or professional... then you might have worse images coming out on top of better ones.

« Reply #285 on: February 26, 2017, 06:54 »
+2
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?

They already do No. 1 for a Select number of top earners.
The only site I know that does that is DP, do have any evidence for SS doing it?

You mean by evidence the fuoking great big elephant sitting on your lap?  The answer was in the answer, even capitalised it for you, Select as in Premier Select, the place where the ever increasing number of Enterprise Customers go, the place where search is not a problem because they have their own web site without all the chaff.  You will not hear any complaints from Premier Select contributors, come to think of it you won't hear anything from them.  If you think you are not getting your share of the pie it's because there are two pies and you can't touch the growing  enterprise pie, except for the few crumbs in the form of SODs, but let's not talk about the elephant.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #286 on: February 26, 2017, 09:04 »
0
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?

They already do No. 1 for a Select number of top earners.
The only site I know that does that is DP, do have any evidence for SS doing it?

You mean by evidence the fuoking great big elephant sitting on your lap?  The answer was in the answer, even capitalised it for you, Select as in Premier Select, the place where the ever increasing number of Enterprise Customers go, the place where search is not a problem because they have their own web site without all the chaff.  You will not hear any complaints from Premier Select contributors, come to think of it you won't hear anything from them.  If you think you are not getting your share of the pie it's because there are two pies and you can't touch the growing  enterprise pie, except for the few crumbs in the form of SODs, but let's not talk about the elephant.
Sorry, didn't catch that.Is the collection just a streamlined version of the main catalogue or unique content?

« Reply #287 on: February 26, 2017, 09:48 »
0
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?

They already do No. 1 for a Select number of top earners.
The only site I know that does that is DP, do have any evidence for SS doing it?

You mean by evidence the fuoking great big elephant sitting on your lap?  The answer was in the answer, even capitalised it for you, Select as in Premier Select, the place where the ever increasing number of Enterprise Customers go, the place where search is not a problem because they have their own web site without all the chaff.  You will not hear any complaints from Premier Select contributors, come to think of it you won't hear anything from them.  If you think you are not getting your share of the pie it's because there are two pies and you can't touch the growing  enterprise pie, except for the few crumbs in the form of SODs, but let's not talk about the elephant.
Sorry, didn't catch that.Is the collection just a streamlined version of the main catalogue or unique content?

Who knows, you need to be an Enterprise Customer to access the Premier Select website, Shutterstock have been busy converting their buyers to the Enterprise platform since 2010, remember the introdution of SODs?  Hence, the quarterly reports show a greater increase in enterprise turnover than the overall business.  I think it was in the last report that they expressed a need to diversify the collection so, anyone who has seen a sudden drop in downloads recently may find that someone who shares their niche is now a Premier Select contributor, previously the Enterprise Team would have had to dip down into the main collection for those images.

Shutterstock information is sparse in regards to the Premier Select collection, this is the last I heard aside from the quarterlies "As we test and learn, we will be back in touch with you about how your work can be included in this new collection." March 16, 2015
  https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/what-premier-select-means-for-shutterstock-contributors

Should you want to be one of the next inductees into the Premier Select collection you might want ignore the elephant in the room, like every one else.

« Reply #288 on: February 26, 2017, 09:56 »
0
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?

For 2, nowadays, web sites are not done locally.

« Reply #289 on: February 26, 2017, 11:56 »
+4
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?


I think that a good, sellable image can come from anyone and to prioritize placement based on how many hours you shoot or whether YOU or the agency thinks someone is serious is a huge disservice to the market. Its as bad as judging whether an image is a good stock image based on the price of the camera it was taken with.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 12:03 by cathyslife »

« Reply #290 on: February 26, 2017, 12:54 »
0
Hello,
longtime lurker here but I finally decided to post so I can share an idea.  I actually emailed Shutterstock these ideas but I don't know if it will do any good.  Here they are:

1.  Prioritize placement for "serious" microstock photographers against "hobbyists" so that we can sustain income to run our businesses.

2.  Prioritize files from local photographers to match with search queries from local regions. This way, images results may look more authentic, and keywords match the context of language in the region.  (This may also keep the waves of images from Europe from dominating the American market)

what do you guys think?
Why the heck should they do 1? Touch arrogant don't you think?

They already do No. 1 for a Select number of top earners.
The only site I know that does that is DP, do have any evidence for SS doing it?

You mean by evidence the fuoking great big elephant sitting on your lap?  The answer was in the answer, even capitalised it for you, Select as in Premier Select, the place where the ever increasing number of Enterprise Customers go, the place where search is not a problem because they have their own web site without all the chaff.  You will not hear any complaints from Premier Select contributors, come to think of it you won't hear anything from them.  If you think you are not getting your share of the pie it's because there are two pies and you can't touch the growing  enterprise pie, except for the few crumbs in the form of SODs, but let's not talk about the elephant.
Sorry, didn't catch that.Is the collection just a streamlined version of the main catalogue or unique content?

Who knows, you need to be an Enterprise Customer to access the Premier Select website, Shutterstock have been busy converting their buyers to the Enterprise platform since 2010, remember the introdution of SODs?  Hence, the quarterly reports show a greater increase in enterprise turnover than the overall business.  I think it was in the last report that they expressed a need to diversify the collection so, anyone who has seen a sudden drop in downloads recently may find that someone who shares their niche is now a Premier Select contributor, previously the Enterprise Team would have had to dip down into the main collection for those images.

Shutterstock information is sparse in regards to the Premier Select collection, this is the last I heard aside from the quarterlies "As we test and learn, we will be back in touch with you about how your work can be included in this new collection." March 16, 2015
  https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/what-premier-select-means-for-shutterstock-contributors

Should you want to be one of the next inductees into the Premier Select collection you might want ignore the elephant in the room, like every one else.
Thanks for pointing this out slipped under my radar...bit sneaky but I think this kind of stuff has always been around adobe have some sort of "elite" files too at a premium price. Yeah if I were good enough I would want to participate...

dpimborough

« Reply #291 on: February 26, 2017, 15:27 »
+2
Yet its quite amazing since I read somewhere that around 90% have less then 1000 files in the portfolio. So whos got them all?


Africa Studio over 1million images

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?sort=portfolio


ukraine russia and thailand account for more than 50 pages...near 40 % and probably much more than 50 millions file...with ukraine with a lot of people producing cheap content in thousand.
as i already told this is the biggest problem.



True!  and this has been going on for some time now. Its incredible really but in these countries it dont take many dollars a day to live the good life so SS will nurse them well and in return they will upload millions of files.
Very hard if not impossible for us to compete since our living and expenses are far higher.


More to the point there is a suspiciously high number of image producers from Thailand Russia and the Ukraine.

I would really be asking myself why? if I were SS or any other agency.

I've reported at least one very high quantity contributor from Thailand months ago to SS because they quite clearly have two accounts producing identical backgrounds.

SS never did anything about it.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 03:49 by Sammy the Cat »


jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #292 on: February 26, 2017, 18:10 »
0
Yet its quite amazing since I read somewhere that around 90% have less then 1000 files in the portfolio. So whos got them all?


Africa Studio over 1million images

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?sort=portfolio


ukraine russia and thailand account for more than 50 pages...near 40 % and probably much more than 50 millions file...with ukraine with a lot of people producing cheap content in thousand.
as i already told this is the biggest problem.



True!  and this has been going on for some time now. Its incredible really but in these countries it dont take many dollars a day to live the good life so SS will nurse them well and in return they will upload millions of files.
Very hard if not impossible for us to compete since our living and expenses are far higher.


More to the point there is a suspiciously high number of image producers from Thailand Russia and the Ukraine.

I would really be asking myself why? if I were SS or any other agency.

I've reported at least one very high quantity contributor from Thailand months ago to SS becaase they quite clearly have two accounts producing identical backgrounds.

SS never did anything about it.


in the case of africa is also thinkable that the owner is just a business man who employs 10 20 photographer paid monthly, to produce content.

clearly there are many people working in micro cause in these countries, russia less but still in many part of russia the level of salary is far behind western standard, the salary for work are so low that even earning few dollars in micro will be a better choice.
that's why there are so many full time micro stocker, while in western world most are hobbit or amateur with small portfolio.
anyway considering they upload mostly same stuff, there will be a point that even them will not earn so much for living.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #293 on: February 26, 2017, 18:11 »
0
Yet its quite amazing since I read somewhere that around 90% have less then 1000 files in the portfolio. So whos got them all?


Africa Studio over 1million images

http://www.microstock.top/indeximg.phtml?sort=portfolio


ukraine russia and thailand account for more than 50 pages...near 40 % and probably much more than 50 millions file...with ukraine with a lot of people producing cheap content in thousand.
as i already told this is the biggest problem.



True!  and this has been going on for some time now. Its incredible really but in these countries it dont take many dollars a day to live the good life so SS will nurse them well and in return they will upload millions of files.
Very hard if not impossible for us to compete since our living and expenses are far higher.


More to the point there is a suspiciously high number of image producers from Thailand Russia and the Ukraine.

I would really be asking myself why? if I were SS or any other agency.

I've reported at least one very high quantity contributor from Thailand months ago to SS becaase they quite clearly have two accounts producing identical backgrounds.

SS never did anything about it.


ss don't give nothing...theuy earn money they only care of this...personally i'd like see an agency ike crestock to be better positioned. less content, but better and good price.

« Reply #294 on: February 27, 2017, 01:52 »
0
Crestock??? sell almost nothing and are rude and arrogant either they couldn't sell an ice cream in a desert or have no clue on what makes a marketable image or both

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #295 on: February 27, 2017, 02:07 »
+1
More to the point there is a suspiciously high number of image producers from Thailand Russia and the Ukraine.

I would really be asking myself why?

Not sure if it's suspicious. If you work in a bricks and mortar job, you're usually limited by local rates when it comes to work. It's more of a level playing field when it comes to the internet, and especially stock.

So if you live in the US and can make $50,000 being a full time, salaried photographer, or $100,000 being a freelance photographer, or $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 selling stock full time.... people might not be clambering to go down the stock route. Slight chance of making more, but big chance of making less.

But if you live in Thailand, and you can make $5,000 being a full time, salaried photographer, or $10,000 being a freelance photographer, or $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 selling stock full time... then it makes it a lot more appealing. Slight chance of making less, but big chance of making more.

And if you can then hire somebody at that $5,000 to make an additional $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 a year, then it kind of makes sense to do so.

Just threw some randomish numbers out as an example... but hopefully it gets the point across.

« Reply #296 on: February 27, 2017, 02:36 »
0
More to the point there is a suspiciously high number of image producers from Thailand Russia and the Ukraine.

I would really be asking myself why?

Not sure if it's suspicious. If you work in a bricks and mortar job, you're usually limited by local rates when it comes to work. It's more of a level playing field when it comes to the internet, and especially stock.

So if you live in the US and can make $50,000 being a full time, salaried photographer, or $100,000 being a freelance photographer, or $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 selling stock full time.... people might not be clambering to go down the stock route. Slight chance of making more, but big chance of making less.

But if you live in Thailand, and you can make $5,000 being a full time, salaried photographer, or $10,000 being a freelance photographer, or $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 selling stock full time... then it makes it a lot more appealing. Slight chance of making less, but big chance of making more.

And if you can then hire somebody at that $5,000 to make an additional $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 a year, then it kind of makes sense to do so.

Just threw some randomish numbers out as an example... but hopefully it gets the point across.
In wealthier countries I would imagine that things like Wedding photography and (increasingly maybe) tutoring are much more lucrative than  stock so the "best" may gravitate towards that. Also to be an employed photographer someone has to employ you...there has to be a job there. I believe there are quite a few Westerners who have moved to cheaper countries too....as a business decision makes total sense.

dpimborough

« Reply #297 on: February 27, 2017, 03:51 »
0
More to the point there is a suspiciously high number of image producers from Thailand Russia and the Ukraine.

I would really be asking myself why?

Not sure if it's suspicious. If you work in a bricks and mortar job, you're usually limited by local rates when it comes to work. It's more of a level playing field when it comes to the internet, and especially stock.

So if you live in the US and can make $50,000 being a full time, salaried photographer, or $100,000 being a freelance photographer, or $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 selling stock full time.... people might not be clambering to go down the stock route. Slight chance of making more, but big chance of making less.

But if you live in Thailand, and you can make $5,000 being a full time, salaried photographer, or $10,000 being a freelance photographer, or $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 selling stock full time... then it makes it a lot more appealing. Slight chance of making less, but big chance of making more.

And if you can then hire somebody at that $5,000 to make an additional $12,500/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000/$200,000 a year, then it kind of makes sense to do so.

Just threw some randomish numbers out as an example... but hopefully it gets the point across.

If that were the case why not other countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India, China, Peru, Chile and so on.

To have so many stuffed in to a single small country is beyond odd.

« Reply #298 on: February 27, 2017, 03:58 »
0
If that were the case why not other countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India, China, Peru, Chile and so on.

To have so many stuffed in to a single small country is beyond odd.

"Single small country"... Thailand has 67+ million people (2013). That's more than the UK, France, Italy, Spain etc.

Thailand isn't dirt poor and there are enough people who own DSLRs compared to the average wage. Culture also comes to play. It may have just the right balance between being developed and cheap living.

Another important thing to consider is that Thailand (Chiang Mai more specifically) is the digital nomad center of the world, meaning people come from all over the world to live there and work online. I wouldn't be surprised if a big percentage of them do stock photography to some extent.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 04:12 by increasingdifficulty »

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #299 on: February 27, 2017, 04:09 »
0
If that were the case why not other countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India, China, Peru, Chile and so on.

To have so many stuffed in to a single small country is beyond odd.

"Single small country"... Maybe read up on your geography? Thailand has 67+ million people (2013). That's more than the UK, France, Italy, Spain etc.

Thailand isn't dirt poor and there are enough people who own DSLRs compared to the average wage. Culture also comes to play. It may have just the right balance between being developed and cheap living.

Another important thing to consider is that Thailand (Chiang Mai more specifically) is the digital nomad center of the world, meaning people come from all over the world to live there and work online. I wouldn't be surprised if a big percentage of them do stock photography to some extent.

True!  but the overwhelming majority are in countries like Russia, ukraine Rumania and Poland.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors