Author Topic: What is your acceptance rate at Crestock ? (Read 20203 times)

leszek · « **on:** February 18, 2008, 08:12 »

It appears to me that they take their statement about "highest quality requirements" a bit too seriously. What is your experience ?

gbcimages · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:26 »

I'm sorry,it's over 20%. It's not really worth it right now for me to upload too

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:43 »

802 accepted, 52 rejected.

digiology · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2008, 11:29 »

I don't have an account there. That judge guy scares me!

Lukasphoto · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2008, 11:33 »

I joined there last month and only got a small portfolio (86).
About 7% rejection but funny enough all but 2 of the rejects were accepted at IS and SS.

sharply_done · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2008, 12:10 »

My acceptance rate at Crestock is a little low - 1205 accepted, 252 rejected = 83%.

Most of my rejections come from Crestock's early months, when they were far too picky about the images they wanted. Although things are much better now in that respect, my impression is that they have a bit of a rogue reviewer problem - there is one reviewer who seems to be more critical than his colleagues. I'm not really concerned about it, though, as Crestock's ability to attract buyers seems to be waning.

Smithore · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2008, 12:18 »

Good acceptance ratio with sometimes very very stupid rejection reasons like "out of focus" with perfectly focused images and over ridiculous reasons i don't remember, I'm going to stop uploading here.

Danicek · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2008, 14:25 »

Crestock is by far the most strict agency for me. I'm not long in this business and have small portfolios. Yet the frequency of rejects at CS in combination with their sales when compared with much higher acceptance rate (for me) at sites like SS, IS, StockXpert with their much higher sales, well, I stopped uploading few weeks ago. May resume again...

leszek · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2008, 16:16 »

Thanks. This is mostly what I expected. I am sending Crestock an E-mail to delete all my accepted images and terminate my account. There is only so much I am willing to do for $0.25 a (unfrequent) download.

josh_crestock · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2008, 16:25 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 18, 2008, 12:10

Although things are much better now in that respect, my impression is that they have a bit of a rogue reviewer problem - there is one reviewer who seems to be more critical than his colleagues.

We keep a pretty close eye on inspections, and are grateful to have some good inspectors who are also active and experienced photographers from within the microstock community. We don't have a 'rogue' inspector problem, or at least I have serious doubts without first seeing some specifics. Please don't hesitate to contact me or anybody on the Crestock team if you have doubts about some inspections you've received. We don't at all mind having a second look at things, so long as you can be as specific as possible with your request. Sorry, 're-evaluate my entire portfolio'-type requests will receive polite denials.

We don't mind admitting we made a mistake or judging something incorrectly. But, please be aware, the inspection team do follow a relatively strict set of creative and technical guidelines that may differ from other agencies. Buyers are attracted by the quality selection of work they find at Crestock, this generates a growing, loyal customer base.

gbcimages · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2008, 16:56 »

I can't see editing photos that other sites have accepted. Just so you can get the quality that you want on your site and pay contributers very little for their hard work.

anonymous · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2008, 17:04 »

Quote from: gbcimages on February 18, 2008, 16:56

I can't see editing photos that other sites have accepted. Just so you can get the quality that you want on your site and pay contributers very little for their hard work.

bingo

Pixart · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2008, 17:12 »

Quote from: leszek on February 18, 2008, 16:16

Thanks. This is mostly what I expected. I am sending Crestock an E-mail to delete all my accepted images and terminate my account. There is only so much I am willing to do for $0.25 a (unfrequent) download.

LOL... I quit as soon as I joined. My first 4 weren't good enough to be offered at full size, and my next 4 were rejected. If I want to feel bad about my skills I just send them to Istock (who incidently SELLS LIKE CRAZY the 52% that they accept).

I do in a weird way like that they will offer a small file if it's sorta okay instead of just rejecting it.

gbcimages · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2008, 17:50 »

I just closed my account with them.

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2008, 18:10 »

I'm almost sure that when I joined CS the subscription did not exist. I would hesitate to join a site with this. Rejection was high, but I could understand this as a selective portfolio to cater buyers with little time to browse hundreds of images. It was upsetting, but I could live with that.

Then subs sales started to happen and most sales came from subs (at least to me - my average earnings are 42c/dld - but I believe it was a general trend). I guess the credit prices versus subscription prices favour the latter a lot - buyers pay 21 to 25c an image (if they upload all the images they're entitled). As I said elsewhere, I dislike more the fact that a buyer pays so little for high res and high quality images than a lower photographer commission (as the mere 20% in IS).

Back to the original question, acceptance has been much higher in my past submissions, but I stopped uploading as I don't see a satisfatory future between me and CS. It's kind of hard for a stubborn person like me to give up, but then I haven't had any sale in January and February. Ok, my portfolio there is of only 70 images.

I haven't however reached the point of closing my account there. I guess the optimist in me always expect a positive change.

Regards,
Adelaide

GeoPappas · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2008, 18:13 »

I will never understand why people will work so hard for a 20% commission, especially from a site that has such low sales.

sharply_done · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2008, 19:53 »

deleted

leszek · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2008, 21:06 »

Well - I am neither arguing nor criticising the inspectors at Crestock. While some of my pics may have some issues - I am simply saying that it is not worth for me to spend hours of my time on a picture which has 80% chance of rejection at Crestock - and sells very well elsewhere.

Quality has a purpose, and should be commensurate with remuneration.

This image, for instance, has been rejected for "Artifacts, compression flaws".

http://www.crestock.com/rejected-image.aspx?id=629729

I doubt very much there are any of the above in the image - unless we count little "ghosts" around the isolated object which show up when someone tries to select white background color. They are created when the image is converted from TIFF to JPEG - and not a thing can be done. That's what threshold setting of 1 (or clipping path) are for.

Of course - if they are considered unacceptable, I have no problem with that. I am not setting the requirements. I am just saying that these requirements are too much for me - individual mileages, as usual, may vary.

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #18 on:** February 19, 2008, 20:47 »

I am new to crestock and following all crestock threads with interest... not to bash the site, but i am really curious about their photographer attrition rates... and how soon people drop out after they join...

... as for me... i'm still looking around... but huh, polite people, them, at crestock. Nice, simple: "Not stock material". Polite too...[me, being sacrastic]...

...some paraphrasing of their rejection reasons might do them some good, by the way, it would actually take them places. A simple "Sorry, at the time this file is not suitable... for whatever reason for addition to crestock library" would reeaally be much more palatable to photogs than a curt, blatant, impolite-ish remark... really. Being more personal, more polite, more respectful of whatever is being submitted might be appreciated....

gbcimages · « **Reply #19 on:** February 19, 2008, 22:30 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on February 18, 2008, 18:13

I will never understand why people will work so hard for a 20% commission, especially from a site that has such low sales.

Right! that's why I won't

Kngkyle · « **Reply #20 on:** February 19, 2008, 22:57 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on February 18, 2008, 18:13

I will never understand why people will work so hard for a 20% commission, especially from a site that has such low sales.

Uploading to Crestock is really no work at all. If you use IPTC you really don't have to do anything other than upload and press select all > submit. By far the easiest site to submit to in my opinion. Well worth it, despite the relatively low sales. (Still better than LO, CanStockPhoto, FP, and SV for me)

I haven't had a problem with their reviewing, all seems fair to me so far. Other sites reject a lot more of mine than they do.

Velvia · « **Reply #21 on:** February 19, 2008, 23:19 »

So far, i can`t complain with Crestock. I had more sales there than LO, SV etc...
I find their reviewers are quite fair but knowledgeable at the same time.

I think that Crestock in general is keen to creative images rather than your typical stock shots.
I think they will do well simply because they know what they are looking for in a picture. They seem to know the business of stock pretty well

CCK · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2008, 04:57 »

I don't have any problems with the reviewers at CS. I have more than 80% accepted compared to 70% at iS. I have on a number of occasions received an e-mail from a reviewer complementing a submission, and I really appreciate that. Sales are very slow, commissions low, but I like the people there, so I will stay.

sharpshot · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2008, 05:17 »

It took me a long time to work this out but sites that pay a low commision and spend lots of money on advertising are better than those that pay us a high commission but don't attract buyers.

I am sticking with crestock, I liked the 70% commission with FP but they don't seem to advertise. 70% of their sales is very little.

I get 30% commission for pay per download sales with CS and $0.25 for subscription sales. They have made a lot more $ for me than FP and several other sites that have a better commission. This is probably because they spend money on big adverts in design magazines.

The Corey · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2008, 15:32 »

All to often the argument comes up that volume equal money and the quality of experience has no bearing on revenue.

For example I work for a macro stock photography company that has a current image collection of around 10,000 images. We send our images to around 50 different macro site distributors around the world and one particular distributor only took 1500 of our images, or 15%. These images are highly produce, professionally shot, color balanced, and retouched. We couldn’t understand why and even flew out to visit with their editors (I guess we all deal with rejection) . They also take more of a cut then a majority of our other distributors.

After months of sales data they are killing most of the competition in generated revenue. Why? Creative know when they go to this site they are going to find exceptional quality and don’t have to wade through tons of images to find the exceptional ones.

This is in no defense of Cresstock as I haven’t dealt with them directly and don’t know their business model, but in general less can sometime mean more money in the end.

josh_crestock · « **Reply #25 on:** February 28, 2008, 03:45 »

Quote from: The Corey on February 27, 2008, 15:32

All to often the argument comes up that volume equal money and the quality of experience has no bearing on revenue.

For example I work for a macro stock photography company that has a current image collection of around 10,000 images. We send our images to around 50 different macro site distributors around the world and one particular distributor only took 1500 of our images, or 15%. These images are highly produce, professionally shot, color balanced, and retouched. We couldn’t understand why and even flew out to visit with their editors (I guess we all deal with rejection) . They also take more of a cut then a majority of our other distributors.

After months of sales data they are killing most of the competition in generated revenue. Why? Creative know when they go to this site they are going to find exceptional quality and don’t have to wade through tons of images to find the exceptional ones.

This is in no defense of Cresstock as I haven’t dealt with them directly and don’t know their business model, but in general less can sometime mean more money in the end.

Thanks, thats some great feedback. Let me know if you ever want to get involved with micro or Crestock.

oboy · « **Reply #26 on:** March 08, 2008, 09:43 »

Wow ... I am usually manage to have an acceptance rate between 55-98% with different agencies. I just signed up with Crestock and uploaded about 90 photo. ... They all were rejected ... And I thought some other agencies are strict, but this was supricing.

stokfoto · « **Reply #27 on:** March 08, 2008, 10:48 »

Quote from: josh_crestock on February 28, 2008, 03:45

Quote from: The Corey on February 27, 2008, 15:32
All to often the argument comes up that volume equal money and the quality of experience has no bearing on revenue.

For example I work for a macro stock photography company that has a current image collection of around 10,000 images. We send our images to around 50 different macro site distributors around the world and one particular distributor only took 1500 of our images, or 15%. These images are highly produce, professionally shot, color balanced, and retouched. We couldn’t understand why and even flew out to visit with their editors (I guess we all deal with rejection) . They also take more of a cut then a majority of our other distributors.

After months of sales data they are killing most of the competition in generated revenue. Why? Creative know when they go to this site they are going to find exceptional quality and don’t have to wade through tons of images to find the exceptional ones.

This is in no defense of Cresstock as I haven’t dealt with them directly and don’t know their business model, but in general less can sometime mean more money in the end.

Thanks, thats some great feedback. Let me know if you ever want to get involved with micro or Crestock.

from the begging I understand quality concerns of crestock(even though sometimes I find their rejections very unreasonable I'd still understand their policy)but there is one obvious thing they are missing out,which also has been mentioned many times is that if they expect best of best they should be offering more than 0,25cents for these top quality images and and at least even at that price they should provide regular sales. sorry it didn't work out for me,I hope things will get better there but if it goes this way I have my doubts I am afraid.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #28 on:** March 08, 2008, 11:39 »

Crestock is pretty tough but try the New Canstock, my acceptance rate is 0 % so far, pretty ridiculus...

sharply_done · « **Reply #29 on:** March 08, 2008, 11:44 »

Quote from: The Corey on February 27, 2008, 15:32

...
This is in no defense of Cresstock as I haven’t dealt with them directly and don’t know their business model, but in general less can sometime mean more money in the end.

Yes, sometimes less means more.

But unfortunately, with their current pricing model, at Crestock less means less. Your agency wouldn't be so pleased with that same distributor (who accepted only 15% of your library) if they sold at bargain prices without the volume and contributed to 1% of total revenue. On a good month.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2008, 03:32 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 20, 2008, 05:17

It took me a long time to work this out but sites that pay a low commision and spend lots of money on advertising are better than those that pay us a high commission but don't attract buyers.

I am sticking with crestock, I liked the 70% commission with FP but they don't seem to advertise. 70% of their sales is very little.

I get 30% commission for pay per download sales with CS and $0.25 for subscription sales. They have made a lot more $ for me than FP and several other sites that have a better commission. This is probably because they spend money on big adverts in design magazines.

I agree with Sharpshot regarding the comparison to FP. 70% of nothing is still nothing on over 100 images that I've had there for a couple of months. I very much liked hearing about the major advertising and marketing in design magazines. I think I'll try uploading there once again ...

Mrk

stokfoto · « **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2008, 06:36 »

Quote from: mwp1969 on March 09, 2008, 03:32

Quote from: sharpshot on February 20, 2008, 05:17
It took me a long time to work this out but sites that pay a low commision and spend lots of money on advertising are better than those that pay us a high commission but don't attract buyers.

I am sticking with crestock, I liked the 70% commission with FP but they don't seem to advertise. 70% of their sales is very little.

I get 30% commission for pay per download sales with CS and $0.25 for subscription sales. They have made a lot more $ for me than FP and several other sites that have a better commission. This is probably because they spend money on big adverts in design magazines.

I agree with Sharpshot regarding the comparison to FP. 70% of nothing is still nothing on over 100 images that I've had there for a couple of months. I very much liked hearing about the major advertising and marketing in design magazines. I think I'll try uploading there once again ...

Mrk

please don't get me wrong but could I ask why you compare two low earners.are we trying to find out how good 'low earners' they are. I 'd go to the opposite way and compare them with my top earners to have a better picture of my future expectations from the sites.

just my two cents

sgraphics · « **Reply #32 on:** March 31, 2008, 03:31 »

My acceptance is well over 85% at Crestock. To me, it's a good site with great potential for the future. I have consistent sales there and love the ease of uploading.

Alatriste · « **Reply #33 on:** March 31, 2008, 03:48 »

Quote from: ldambies on March 08, 2008, 11:39

Crestock is pretty tough but try the New Canstock, my acceptance rate is 0 % so far, pretty ridiculus...

Dont give up.
They used to reject all I sent at the begining but now it becomes to a (+or-) 80% acceptance

josh_crestock · « **Reply #34 on:** March 31, 2008, 04:15 »

Quote from: Trebuchet on March 31, 2008, 03:48

Quote from: ldambies on March 08, 2008, 11:39
Crestock is pretty tough but try the New Canstock, my acceptance rate is 0 % so far, pretty ridiculus...

Dont give up.
They used to reject all I sent at the begining but now it becomes to a (+or-) 80% acceptance

I don't think ldambies was talking about Crestock with a 0% acceptance rate. I know that photograher's acceptance rate is way higher than 0 on Crestock.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #35 on:** March 31, 2008, 05:18 »

I was indeed referring to CanStockPhoto for 0 % . I never evaluate with acceptance ratio at Crestock but it is probably more than 50%.
To go back to CT Josh since you are there I am a bit worried about the sub sales, did not have credit sales for a very long time, I don t know if you have observe this trend?
Cheers
L

josh_crestock · « **Reply #36 on:** March 31, 2008, 06:36 »

ldambies,

There is no doubt that subscription sales are increasing. But, then, sales are also increasing across the board, credit sales and subs.

From what I understand, subscription sales don't affect credit sales too much. These sales are accounted for by 2 different types of customers. There are those that are looking for specific images and don't mind paying per credit. Subscription customers (usually designers) are more impulsive shoppers, spreading their purchases around as much as possible.

Subscriptions are good because they cause a much heavier amount of purchasing, increasing exposure to your portfolio. For Crestock, its a great way of topping up sales and increasing traffic and activity on the site. I think the positives and negatives of subs have probably been covered several times over in other discussions.

I will contact the marketing team about possible ways of boosting up credit sales. We'd prefer to promote a trend of credit sales. Any ideas or thoughts here are definitely encouraged.

Josh Hodge
The Crestock Team

rene · « **Reply #37 on:** March 31, 2008, 10:08 »

Quote from: josh_crestock on March 31, 2008, 06:36

From what I understand, subscription sales don't affect credit sales too much. These sales are accounted for by 2 different types of customers. There are those that are looking for specific images and don't mind paying per credit. Subscription customers (usually designers) are more impulsive shoppers, spreading their purchases around as much as possible.

Subscriptions are good because they cause a much heavier amount of purchasing, increasing exposure to your portfolio. For Crestock, its a great way of topping up sales and increasing traffic and activity on the site. I think the positives and negatives of subs have probably been covered several times over in other discussions.

I don't think that subscription's customers are different from others. They are not comming from Mars... They just need more images and they buy them much cheaper. Do you think that without subscription sites this kind of customers will disappear, go out of business. No, they will just pay more.

mantonino · « **Reply #38 on:** March 31, 2008, 10:20 »

I think my first batch Crestock was 40% or therabouts. I expected that though as I sent them my portfolio - some of which is 2-3 years old and probably shouldn't be submitted. It sells other places though so I thought I'd try it there.

I have another 41 pending with CS right now and will definitely post how those go. They are all brand new, studio produced stuff.

cshack · « **Reply #39 on:** March 31, 2008, 12:21 »

I just started uploading to Crestock myself. They approved about 80% of what I uploaded. However, they went back after approving 3 of the images and rejected them. They are silhouettes of teen agers in action with a dropped shadows. They don't seem to have any idea of what sells either. The images the rejected are a few of my best sellers on other sites. My uploads will stop for a while until they get their act together. To get rejected after being approved is BS.....just like the sales on Crestock.

josh_crestock · « **Reply #40 on:** April 01, 2008, 06:00 »

Quote from: rene on March 31, 2008, 10:08

I don't think that subscription's customers are different from others. They are not comming from Mars... They just need more images and they buy them much cheaper. Do you think that without subscription sites this kind of customers will disappear, go out of business. No, they will just pay more.

Unfortunately, in Crestock's case it would just result in a loss of customers due to them going elsewhere, rather than them being obligated to pay more. We're constantly looking into raising prices and increasing commissions, but gaining a loyal base of returning customers and some influence on the market comes first.

Quote from: cshack on March 31, 2008, 12:21

I just started uploading to Crestock myself. They approved about 80% of what I uploaded. However, they went back after approving 3 of the images and rejected them. They are silhouettes of teen agers in action with a dropped shadows. They don't seem to have any idea of what sells either. The images the rejected are a few of my best sellers on other sites. My uploads will stop for a while until they get their act together. To get rejected after being approved is BS.....just like the sales on Crestock.

Hi cschack,
Would you be able to contact me directly with your Crestock username or image numbers of the 3 images so I can let you know exactly what the problem was there? Much appreciated.

mantonino · « **Reply #41 on:** April 01, 2008, 10:40 »

14/40. LOL

What a joke.

Portia_Remnant · « **Reply #42 on:** April 01, 2008, 20:06 »

I have submitted both vectors and jpegs. They accepted all 19 of my images in jpeg format only. After one month and one inquiry to their help desk, I have yet to hear whether they have accepted or rejected these same images as vectors.

josh_crestock · « **Reply #43 on:** April 02, 2008, 04:58 »

Quote from: Portia_Remnant on April 01, 2008, 20:06

I have submitted both vectors and jpegs. They accepted all 19 of my images in jpeg format only. After one month and one inquiry to their help desk, I have yet to hear whether they have accepted or rejected these same images as vectors.

Vectors are inspected by different inspectors than jpg images, so it runs on a bit of different schedule. I'll check up on this for you. Thanks for letting us know.

Phil · « **Reply #44 on:** April 02, 2008, 06:43 »

I couldn't say what my rejection rate is or how long it takes for review etc. They are in my ftp queue, I hit submit and leave. I dont look to see what they accept / reject etc. They get opened up to check balance when I hit 'open all in tabs' I hit account, check and leave. None of that is a negative, they take what they want and reject what they don't (like all sites) I don't do the adjust / resubmit thing.
Phil

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #45 on:** April 29, 2008, 08:35 »

Just submitted our first batch of images, which are at five of the big six...

3/50...

Not sure where to take it from here...

mantonino · « **Reply #46 on:** April 29, 2008, 09:27 »

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on April 29, 2008, 08:35

3/50...Not sure where to take it from here...

The same place a lot of us are (off Crestock)

cascoly · « **Reply #47 on:** April 29, 2008, 18:28 »

agreed, over the last month, after about 300 upls of images on multiple other sites, crestock has taken 25, sold 1.

i've tried repeatedly to find out why these were rejected, but only get boilerplate responses, and after having to click on each rejected image individually, you only find other canned and arbitrary messages.

i'll leave what's there for awhile but even with the relatively simple upl porcvess it's a waste of time.

steve

anonymous · « **Reply #48 on:** April 29, 2008, 23:48 »

same here...the worst payouts and most inane rejections. I'll leave my current port but stopped uploading over a year ago. "Josh" is the ONLY positive thing about them as he maintains a frequent profile on the boards. At some point tho, even HE has to get a bit tired of the "crap pay" and "rejectionmania" complaints. Josh, go to the light!!!!

melastmohican · « **Reply #49 on:** May 01, 2008, 16:12 »

I am new to microstock. I upload equally to few sites and at this point I got large collection of photos to review, process and upload. I kinda like clearviewstock approach and I am getting closer to stop reacting to rejections. Let them take what they want as long upload process is relatively easy. In my case it's like 10% now at Crestock but there is not single download.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #50 on:** May 01, 2008, 16:44 »

172/188 Not bad, but the earnings are hardly worth the while.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #51 on:** May 01, 2008, 17:27 »

mine is worst of all stock sites

I just don't want to say it

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What is your acceptance rate at Crestock ? (Read 20203 times)

gbcimages

digiology

josh_crestock

gbcimages

gbcimages

gbcimages

josh_crestock

josh_crestock

josh_crestock

josh_crestock

josh_crestock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors