pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has Shutterstock returned to normal for you?  (Read 15326 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: October 09, 2018, 11:05 »
0
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.

Maybe, but imho there are 2 things more pro contributors often forget:

- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.

- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
I think often people mistake buyers requirements which is "fit for purpose" with some perceived requirement for technically and artistically brilliant photographs. If two pictures are equally fit for purpose whose to say which one should be ranked higher? The market decides quality not fellow professionals.

No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.
You clearly don't understand what "quality" means in commercial/business terms. You make my point for me. Quality means "fit for purpose". 

"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."

« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 11:07 by Pauws99 »


« Reply #151 on: October 09, 2018, 12:40 »
+1
No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.

Not exactly.
The definition of art is very liberal, these days. "Beauty is the eye of the beholder" is expressing exactly that.
The plebs (read customer) is King is another one.

Experts are analyzing what plebs want and they give them exactly that. Plebs are often those defining fashionable trends.
This is why Instagram filters (a blasphemy for traditional photographers) became mainstream, why advertisers embraced this style and why SS relaxed their rejection standards. Plebs don't care about pixel peeping quality, history of art and associated aesthetics.
They like what they see everyday on their social media feed. That became today's fashion and today's beauty, like it or not!

If you don't get that you are in the wrong business, my friend.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 14:05 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #152 on: October 10, 2018, 04:02 »
+2
First 5 pages are the important in a search! then the buyer will move on. SS is forcing people, telling them what to buy and pushing sub packages that way!...its completely destroyed as a money spinner for contributors.

« Reply #153 on: October 10, 2018, 11:53 »
+4
First 5 pages are the important in a search! then the buyer will move on. SS is forcing people, telling them what to buy and pushing sub packages that way!...its completely destroyed as a money spinner for contributors.


When I used to buy for various companies, if my search didn't turn up what I needed I changed the search, not choose some sub standard picture.

I think so many forget that people who license images are as diverse a group as those who make them. I think it is virtually impossible to quantify what most buyers do without access to metrics from the agencies.

« Reply #154 on: October 11, 2018, 01:32 »
0
First 5 pages are the important in a search! then the buyer will move on. SS is forcing people, telling them what to buy and pushing sub packages that way!...its completely destroyed as a money spinner for contributors.


When I used to buy for various companies, if my search didn't turn up what I needed I changed the search, not choose some sub standard picture.

I think so many forget that people who license images are as diverse a group as those who make them. I think it is virtually impossible to quantify what most buyers do without access to metrics from the agencies.


Fine!  but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha!   this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone!  thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??

« Reply #155 on: October 11, 2018, 11:40 »
+2
Fine!  but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha!   this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone!  thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??

Well, maybe so. But every search is different for each agency. So again, every buyer is different, and having been a contractor for many places that have accounts, I can also say that in my experience, I have never seen a company have less than 2 accounts with different agencies.

In my opinion, and I have said this for years, the problem with micro was there was little to no quality control, in BOTH directions. Micro could have been a stepping stone to macro for those who could learn to produce quality images. Instead, the macro crowd jumped on the bandwagon early and uploaded awesome photos to compete with "apple on white" because it was so immediately lucrative. They killed the quality barrier and made good images almost worthless in only a few years. Sure, lots of other factors involved, but this was a big one in my mind.

The agencies helped the ball to speed down the hill by not pricing differently for better images. They could have easily in the beginning. Dollar or free bins, and then medium quality, then offset and stocksy quality stuff, and so on, all in one portal. But they didn't. So now the market is completely saturated by crap and gold and the long time micro guys now sound exactly like the macro guys when MS started (remember those rants? Exactly the same as now). We could have had a ladder to grow our work, our talents, and our income by advancing up the quality stream. Instead, we all chase the same (decreasing) pennies.

So now, SS is public. Their duty is solely to shareholders, some of whom I am absolutely sure have no idea what it is we even do. And as public companies are usually doing, they look for short term profit over sustainability to keep their shares up. Expect nothing but worse and worse news because when innovation starts to go, cutting costs is the only means they have to show an increasing profit. We are only a cost to them.

I think I fell off topic. Sorry!

« Reply #156 on: October 12, 2018, 02:05 »
+1
Fine!  but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha!   this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone!  thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??

Well, maybe so. But every search is different for each agency. So again, every buyer is different, and having been a contractor for many places that have accounts, I can also say that in my experience, I have never seen a company have less than 2 accounts with different agencies.

In my opinion, and I have said this for years, the problem with micro was there was little to no quality control, in BOTH directions. Micro could have been a stepping stone to macro for those who could learn to produce quality images. Instead, the macro crowd jumped on the bandwagon early and uploaded awesome photos to compete with "apple on white" because it was so immediately lucrative. They killed the quality barrier and made good images almost worthless in only a few years. Sure, lots of other factors involved, but this was a big one in my mind.

The agencies helped the ball to speed down the hill by not pricing differently for better images. They could have easily in the beginning. Dollar or free bins, and then medium quality, then offset and stocksy quality stuff, and so on, all in one portal. But they didn't. So now the market is completely saturated by crap and gold and the long time micro guys now sound exactly like the macro guys when MS started (remember those rants? Exactly the same as now). We could have had a ladder to grow our work, our talents, and our income by advancing up the quality stream. Instead, we all chase the same (decreasing) pennies.

So now, SS is public. Their duty is solely to shareholders, some of whom I am absolutely sure have no idea what it is we even do. And as public companies are usually doing, they look for short term profit over sustainability to keep their shares up. Expect nothing but worse and worse news because when innovation starts to go, cutting costs is the only means they have to show an increasing profit. We are only a cost to them.

I think I fell off topic. Sorry!


I agree with you 100%!  quality has completely flown out the window, there just isnt any. SS lowered the bar and made it so easy to gain entry thet every weekend snapper is applying.
I had a buyer last week looking for some of my shots, he sent me a PM saying he was lost couldnt find anything, I directed him to one of my trad-agencies and he paid a bit more for EL's but so what.

Yes youre right its only going to get worse!  short term profit thinking, screwing up the searches in hope for more revenue, dumping the western world and nursing the eastern countries and not giving a f&%k about contributors only leads to disaster. :)


« Reply #157 on: October 12, 2018, 07:32 »
+1
till 8th october serb month...matched last year october...then nothing...seems like i m erased by search   engine...file from 9 years  unsold sells while nothing else sell...i already one...i predicted my month income at the   beginning of month and I'm sure i will be correct...now ten days of nothing then a sudden boost just to match my level of sales...at least we have a fixed income :)...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #158 on: October 12, 2018, 11:57 »
+1

(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose". 

"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."

Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.

Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message.

True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.

« Reply #159 on: October 15, 2018, 07:11 »
0
Looking at this month's sales it looked like the new normal - ie <50% of 2012 ish sales up until the 5th, then it dropped to a newer lower normal? I hope not.

Every once in a while I go back a few years there and look at sales in a month - what a change and not for the better since then.

PZF

« Reply #160 on: October 16, 2018, 14:51 »
0
First 10 days in Oct ok. Not great but ok overall, very variable but on average ok. One day 26 DLs and haven't seen anything like that for YEARS when it used to be the norm!
Then bang, back to disaster. Weekdays often 5-10 DLs.
:(

« Reply #161 on: October 16, 2018, 16:34 »
0
Same here yesterday quite reasonable today bang! 3 subs and it happens regular as clockwork now every week since September :(

« Reply #162 on: October 17, 2018, 01:59 »
0
Last sort of 3 days have been reasonably OK!  probably a flash in the pan??

« Reply #163 on: October 17, 2018, 02:33 »
0
When does something people have been complaining about for years become "normal"?

« Reply #164 on: October 17, 2018, 10:30 »
0
When does something people have been complaining about for years become "normal"?

When they see that sales are not the same all the days months and overall many incomes have been down for 5 years. No more growing like it was that's normal.

« Reply #165 on: October 17, 2018, 11:45 »
+1
Noticed a pattern when reading about htis os SS forums, ppl who are happy with the changes seems to have very amateurish of not downright questionable content, ppl who's DLs are down seem to have very professional ports.
Seems buyers might not agree.........I'm not sure anyone is actually happy with the way SS have gone recently they just don't take it as if SS have some personal vendetta against them and are deliberately trashing their own profits just to spite them.




- Many if not most of the buyers aren't very refined taste ppl. Few of my super best sellers are downright lame if not some of my worst shots. Whenever they pop up for me on the net somewhere, I still can't get what . they like about them.

- In such a huge system with so many merchandise and customers, you can sneakily 'force' things on ppl quite effectively without them noticing for a long time, like google skewing search results either for marketing or political reasons.
I think often people mistake buyers requirements which is "fit for purpose" with some perceived requirement for technically and artistically brilliant photographs. If two pictures are equally fit for purpose whose to say which one should be ranked higher? The market decides quality not fellow professionals.

No, this is visual arts, even if not high art, qualified people decide what is quality not the plebs. They may prefer to buy whatever they want, but they have no say in what beauty or aesthetic is... or more accurately they simply can't tell at all which is proven every single day as they just find amazing whatever they are told to, otherwise there wouldn't be a fashion rotation in just about everything. Also I have the aesthetic-attractive shots where I already say saving them 'this will be a seller' and they almost always are sellers. So actual real aesthetic does count even here, it is the more reliable part of the system.
You clearly don't understand what "quality" means in commercial/business terms. You make my point for me. Quality means "fit for purpose". 

"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."

ISO? Yo you have an ISO-like exact standard for what is good stock photo completely away form that it should be aesthetically pleasing? These are pictures not CNC heads. This must be one of the stupidest things I ever read here. :D

« Reply #166 on: October 17, 2018, 11:52 »
0

(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose". 

"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."

Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.

Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message.

True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.

Unless it's scientific or forensic, a non-high art picture's only real purpose is to be attractive/aesthetically attractive. Since these pics mostly go into uses that either ad or ad-like, with some ultra-rare exceptions, that is their sole purpose.


« Reply #167 on: October 17, 2018, 13:42 »
0
no

« Reply #168 on: October 17, 2018, 18:15 »
0

(...in business terms) Quality means "fit for purpose". 

"ISO 8402-1986 standard defines quality as "the totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bears its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs."

Art: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating, which express the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.

Microstock is not really about art, it's about the business of making useful images that buyers want and need to express or convey a message. Something very creative or artistic might never get one download on stock sites because the images need to be about their message.

True however a more artistic version of an image, might get more downloads and make more than a strictly boring factual image. Still the objective here is not about creative ART but the message and the concept.

Unless it's scientific or forensic, a non-high art picture's only real purpose is to be attractive/aesthetically attractive. Since these pics mostly go into uses that either ad or ad-like, with some ultra-rare exceptions, that is their sole purpose.
You don't think perhaps the purpose  is to help sell more of the product being advertised? I know you don't like business terminology but being aesthetically pleasing is a "feature" like being in landscape, depicting the product, providing copyspace, conveying a mood and countless other things in the buyers mind.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 00:50 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #169 on: Yesterday at 01:00 »
0
Fine!  but we are not talking sub-standard agencies anymore. Everyone of these sites have got the same identical portfolios. Members are loading up the same stuff to everyone of them, haha!   this is one of the reasons why we are in this mess!..there are members who have joined 20 agencies and uploaded identical files to everyone!  thats micro-agencies for you......now given the fact that SS with their hundreds of million files and their constant changing search, well see how far you get??

Well, maybe so. But every search is different for each agency. So again, every buyer is different, and having been a contractor for many places that have accounts, I can also say that in my experience, I have never seen a company have less than 2 accounts with different agencies.

In my opinion, and I have said this for years, the problem with micro was there was little to no quality control, in BOTH directions. Micro could have been a stepping stone to macro for those who could learn to produce quality images. Instead, the macro crowd jumped on the bandwagon early and uploaded awesome photos to compete with "apple on white" because it was so immediately lucrative. They killed the quality barrier and made good images almost worthless in only a few years. Sure, lots of other factors involved, but this was a big one in my mind.

The agencies helped the ball to speed down the hill by not pricing differently for better images. They could have easily in the beginning. Dollar or free bins, and then medium quality, then offset and stocksy quality stuff, and so on, all in one portal. But they didn't. So now the market is completely saturated by crap and gold and the long time micro guys now sound exactly like the macro guys when MS started (remember those rants? Exactly the same as now). We could have had a ladder to grow our work, our talents, and our income by advancing up the quality stream. Instead, we all chase the same (decreasing) pennies.

So now, SS is public. Their duty is solely to shareholders, some of whom I am absolutely sure have no idea what it is we even do. And as public companies are usually doing, they look for short term profit over sustainability to keep their shares up. Expect nothing but worse and worse news because when innovation starts to go, cutting costs is the only means they have to show an increasing profit. We are only a cost to them.

I think I fell off topic. Sorry!


I agree with you 100%!  quality has completely flown out the window, there just isnt any. SS lowered the bar and made it so easy to gain entry thet every weekend snapper is applying.
I had a buyer last week looking for some of my shots, he sent me a PM saying he was lost couldnt find anything, I directed him to one of my trad-agencies and he paid a bit more for EL's but so what.

Yes youre right its only going to get worse!  short term profit thinking, screwing up the searches in hope for more revenue, dumping the western world and nursing the eastern countries and not giving a f&%k about contributors only leads to disaster. :)

Correct.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
8532 Views
Last post August 31, 2014, 14:06
by Cesar
5 Replies
2067 Views
Last post April 24, 2015, 12:19
by pixaroma
22 Replies
20040 Views
Last post May 20, 2016, 09:49
by ccbcc
23 Replies
12189 Views
Last post July 22, 2016, 11:53
by txking
19 Replies
4084 Views
Last post November 30, 2016, 17:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors