MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Drastic reduction in upload limits for top contributors at DT  (Read 21558 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 13, 2010, 06:37 »
0
Interesting development at DT. Upload limits, based on Approval Rating, have been modified for all contributors but the biggest change has been to those with an AR of 80%+ who who have dropped from 50 per day down to 20.

Read all about it here;

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_21188_pg1

This appears to have been designed to curb the activities of the 'photo factories' limiting them to a maximum of 600 new uploads per month and also making it less convenient for them to do so. As so few contributors will be affected by this it does seem targetted against a very small group.


microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2010, 07:03 »
0
seems like an acknowledgment that microstock needs contributors from all levels

keeping only top contributors in too high regard may favour quality but is detrimental for variety and freshness, as small contributors would feel disappointed and leave

although allowed uploads remain the same for most of us, the market share for small contributors may slightly increase, so it's a welcome move in my opinion to keep most happy
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 07:09 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2010, 07:18 »
0
seems like an acknowledgment that microstock needs contributors from all levels

keeping only top contributors in too high regard may favour quality but is detrimental for variety and freshness, as small contributors would feel disappointed and leave


True enough but these 'photo factories' are also the contributors who are investing the most into their shoots, working the hardest, producing the best quality and in the process ... making the most money for DT. The factories are only economically viable because they also produce the sales to justify the investment. It's not much of a 'thank you' to Yuri and the like is it? DT is effectively saying they'd prefer them to scale down their operations.

« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2010, 07:26 »
0
That's still 7k images a year. How many contributors produce more than 7k images a year? Is Yuri producing that much yet?

But seriously, I don't understand their move (unless their reviewers are really overwelmed).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2010, 07:41 »
0
Surely the members of a photo factory could (with some internal reorganisation and rewriting of contracts, presumably) just join as individual members? It could be argued that this is more honest anyway.

« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2010, 07:49 »
0
Yuri:
Monthly uploads:     491.90 average

Monkey Business Images
Monthly uploads:     804.16 average

« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2010, 07:59 »
0
Why is this a new vs. old contributor argument?  Looks like it's simply based on acceptance ratio.  Mine has been around 90% since I started contributing at DT just over a year ago, so it applies to me.  Of course, I only submit 2 or 3 a day, so it won't affect me.  I see this as a good thing.

RT


« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2010, 08:04 »
0
I think it may be more down to DT having a problem getting reviewers and their workload rather than them trying to stem the amount of images the busy contributors upload, I think I'm right in saying that to be a reviewer on DT you need to be exclusive, and lets face it if you were going to be exclusive with one site I think most would choose iS rather than DT.
So by lowering the amount the big guys upload it means that the smaller guys will get their images reviewed a bit quicker. 
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 08:08 by RT »

red

« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2010, 09:16 »
0
As a buyer looking for "just the right image" I get discouraged and weary when I find page after page of all the same images at all the agencies. I don't go from place to place because of price, but for image uniqueness. If this is a (small) attempt on DT's part to make their collection "different" by including more small players without tons of similars I applaud it.

However, it will take a looooong time for their huge supply of images to present itself as different. This won't happen until more contributors become exclusive, and more agencies favor and promote their exclusives. Yes, I'm a small player and exclusive but I'm looking at this from a buyer's perspective.

I'd much prefer if DT, and other stock sites, got rid of all the so, so similar images from the big players. They are starting to look very dated. Culling is always controversial because it is subjective but it would be wonderful if one of the agencies took it upon themselves to really get rid of the similars, meaning between different photographers. Too many copiers. I'm not describing similars in terms of a few different angles of the same shoot - I sometimes wish an image was shot just a bit different for my particular need, but I mean all the different, but same, shots (such as business meetings who always seem to only include good-looking young executives on a white background) from the multiple photo factories.

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2010, 09:39 »
0
Thanks, Cuppa, for the buyers perspective.

Seems like there is a fine line to walk between having variety and also having the best work from top producers.  IMO none of the agencies has really worked it out perfectly yet.

I agree the copying and the shear "sameness" of so much of the content is a problem.  And if even if you aren't producing along the same formulas your stuff can be nearly impossible to find, buried as it is by the factory stuff.

I applaud Dreamstime for trying to do something about the problem and differentiate their collection from the others.  Just hope it works out as planned without losing them some top producers in the process.

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2010, 09:41 »
0
Why is this a new vs. old contributor argument?  Looks like it's simply based on acceptance ratio.  Mine has been around 90% since I started contributing at DT just over a year ago, so it applies to me.  Of course, I only submit 2 or 3 a day, so it won't affect me.  I see this as a good thing.

Maybe I missed something, but where do you see that it is an old vs new contributor argument.  Most of the comments were referring to the 'factories' (whether they are old or new).  It applies to them because they are probably the only ones who would really feel the effects of this change.

For reference here is the changes.
Quote
Old limits:
50 images/day +80%
10 images/day 50-80%
5 images/day 30-50%
2 images/day 0-30%

New limits:
20 images/day +80%
10 images/day 50-80%
6 images/day 30-50%
5 images/day 10-30%
3 images/day 1-10%

« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2010, 10:06 »
0
This is the telling statement at the head of the post:
"The gap between contributors with high approval ratio and low approval ratio is set high and several drawbacks were reported. Low AR contributors find it difficult to recover a mistake they did in the initial stages. High AR contributors usually don't reach the upper limit, generating less self-selection as the contributor hurries to increase his database exposure.This dillutes RPD, lowers the royalty percentage of the contributor and attracts more subscription downloads (leading again to a lower RPD)."

Very pointed.

Dook

« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2010, 10:31 »
0
I don't know about the others, but it is almost impossible to upload every day for me. I have to travel, to shoot outdoors or I just have day off, so I can use only around 70-80% of my upload limit. It would be better to have weekly limits.

« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2010, 10:39 »
0
This is the telling statement at the head of the post:
"The gap between contributors with high approval ratio and low approval ratio is set high and several drawbacks were reported. Low AR contributors find it difficult to recover a mistake they did in the initial stages. High AR contributors usually don't reach the upper limit, generating less self-selection as the contributor hurries to increase his database exposure.This dillutes RPD, lowers the royalty percentage of the contributor and attracts more subscription downloads (leading again to a lower RPD)."

Very pointed.
It is very pointed, but only in the unique DT image level system. Most revenue comes from level 2+ images, so you should avoid uploading similars since this means competing with yourselve (and attracting subs, which is new to me). People like Yuri had no problem reaching the top on IS with just 15 per week, so those won't be harmed that much by "only" 140 per week. On the contrary, being more selective on similars might paradoxically increase their revenue. A sub site like SS needs a totally different approach. There are no levels so you can upload similars but mixed of several shoots per batch, so that every shoot will have extended exposure.

« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2010, 10:39 »
0
20 a day is plenty, even for a bulk contributor.  At first I said hey, what, don't limit the GOOD photographers - but then I thought that I've never been able to upload 7200 images.  This may truly affect 5-10 people in the world on the high end.

« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2010, 10:48 »
0
It would be better to have weekly limits.
+1 - but, if you produce in bursts (like me) you can always upload in bulk and let them hibernate in the "unfinished" section. It's a bit like Deepmeta for IS where you can prepare/mrf-attach/disambiguate your excess images in advance, then let that queue slowly run empty by a weekly upload. Reviewing is an important part of the cost of running a stock site and you keep your reviewers happy by a steady amount per day.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 10:50 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2010, 12:38 »
0
I am not an "image factory", but I find this very confusing. I thought DT's purpose, like any other stock agency's, was to make money selling images. Production companies exist because people who run them know what sells and can shoot it well. They have their expenses, and if a certain subject stops making money, they don't just keep shooting it (not if they have half a brain) but move on to something else that proves to be profitable. How else can you run a successful business? Why would any agency choose to limit contributions from people who produce high quality highly sellable images? If there will be too many of curtain subject, supply-demand law will take care of it automatically. Production companies won't keep shooting the same stuff in a same way and lose money - well, I already said that:) So.... to me it looks like DT is not focusing on making money anymore... I am not sure what they are focusing on though.... Unless the whole thing with limiting uploads is due to the shortage of reviewers (but then why not say that?...)

« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2010, 13:44 »
0
Why would any agency choose to limit contributions from people who produce high quality highly sellable images?

The way I understand it, say Yuri (sorry Yuri) can produce 100 amazing images a day.  Well DT makes more money on higher level images, so do we.  So they'd rather have the BEST 20 from that day - they get to L2 faster and thus make everyone more money faster.

Xalanx

« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2010, 14:43 »
0
I think it's a good move. It evens a bit between massive uploaders and the other contributors. Which should only be beneficial to sales and diversity, in my opinion.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2010, 14:51 »
0
Maybe THATwill convince the big guys to go exclusive.   :o ;D

« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2010, 17:10 »
0
we've gone so negative on the image factories now :) I would think Yuri's 30k images would be a drop in the ocean in a library of 8 or 10 million images.

I think the bigger problem is search engines. why can an image average a couple of sales a day on one site yet go for a few years without a single sale on another, I'm sure the difference in buyers between sites isnt that big. I also have sets where 1 image does well on one site and a different image from the same series does well on another.

I can see why DT do it with their structure, concerns over too many people wanting to save money and buy the similar rather than pay for the higher ranked image, so they make less. Concerning considering how much they dropped commissions. But then someone will just buy someone elses similar image, there is not that many really unique subjects / images :)

daily rather than weekly amount gets going to the site each day so generates a nice amount of traffic.

« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2010, 17:41 »
0
Interesting and well-thought decision. I know why they did it and even if I disagree this is a good solution to solve their most recent 'problem'. My upload ratio is over 95% and yes I could use that daily 50. Now it will be daily 20. My uploader will be happy... less work. I am not that happy... more retouched and keyworded images will stay on my HD. Fortunately DT is not such a big earner so it doesn't hurt too much. If FTL or SS would do the same I should have to click on that exclusivity button on IS next day. Let's hope others will not follow. Not that I wouldn't do more money with less work as IS ex :) ...all my friends are converting one after the other.

« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2010, 20:42 »
0
I am not sure what they are focusing on though....
Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs? Are you telling that DT is not commercial with 7,000 per year, and IS is, with 750 or 1,000 per year?
If you produce in bursts, having particular days of 50 images ready for instance, the only thing you will lose is convenience, since you will have to submit them over a period of several days. It's still more convenient than on IS with weekly limits.

« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2010, 21:28 »
0
I am not sure what they are focusing on though....
Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs?

Monthly uploads:     191.36 average

You used to be able to do 1500 a month and you were doing 191.  Now you can do 600.  Either way it's not all that limiting.

« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2010, 22:40 »
0
I am not sure what they are focusing on though....
Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs?

Monthly uploads:     191.36 average

You used to be able to do 1500 a month and you were doing 191.  Now you can do 600.  Either way it's not all that limiting.

Ummm.... never mind:) I wasn't talking about myself, I thought that was pretty clear... But, if there is a need to become personal:)...  why do I have to lose my convenience  of being able to click through my stuff at once? To make the life of Arcurs or Monkey Business or the likes difficult? How does that make sense? And ya, Istock upload limits suck more, but how's that relevant?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
11570 Views
Last post April 21, 2006, 16:00
by CJPhoto
2 Replies
3477 Views
Last post June 21, 2008, 10:04
by vphoto
1 Replies
3965 Views
Last post February 07, 2010, 14:21
by UncleGene
14 Replies
5813 Views
Last post February 20, 2010, 09:54
by donding
45 Replies
13119 Views
Last post April 18, 2011, 07:24
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle