MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: EmberMike on June 07, 2015, 11:41
-
Just got a rejection notification for a recently submitted vector badge design. In looking at my other recent rejections, I have 4 that are kind of surprising:
(http://www.emberstudio.com/random/dt-rejections.jpg)
The rejection reason given was:
We are currently accepting icons, buttons, signs, symbols, logos, labels, stamps, maps and flags, alphabet and numbers, zodiac, tattoo only submitted in sets/collections (combined/grouped into one single image), not as individual images. Thank you.
I'm assuming this is a new policy, since as of just last month I was still getting single icons, badges, and emblems accepted.
Two things I find pretty disturbing about this: One is that we don't seem to have a choice anymore in how we put vector badges/emblems up for sale on DT. It's either you bundle stuff together or it gets rejected. I'm not a big fan of companies telling me how to sell my stuff. Having a choice in how things are put together has always been something that we had the freedom do to, but it seems that DT is trying to force us into a bundle format.
Second, I'm bothered by what seems to qualify as something that should be bundled with other similar things. For example those camping emblems above are fairly complex. I couldn't justify the time spent doing a whole series of them and selling them all together as one file. At least not at DT where I have no say in price.
This new policy will severely limit my uploading at DT. Having no choice in how I put single images or bundled sets of images together means I either have to dumb down what I do in an effort to limit time spent on a set, or just not upload certain things to DT. I'm leaning towards the latter.
-
The bad news is that there is probably always going to be some obstacles like this. The good news is that these companies often change and reverse some of their old policies. I guess you can just do whatever you think is best and hope that these places will catch up eventually.
-
Do you think one might have more sales on a set than on separate icons? Perhaps the simple icons, badges, etc. might have a better chance of selling if the buyer thinks they are getting more for their money. Yes, I know that "simple" is not always simple in the eye of the artist. I know how much work goes into (some) illustrations. Just wondering since the name of the game is volume of sales when it comes to sub sales.
-
Agree. If I was a buyer, I would definitely prefer to buy a set, then every icon seperately.
-
Agree. If I was a buyer, I would definitely prefer to buy a set, then every icon seperately.
If we're talking about simple icons, then sure, I think they should come in sets. But the stuff I referenced above isn't part of any set. They're one-off illustrations. And aside from (maybe) the balloons they're not simple enough to justify the time needed to build out a set and sell them all together. I don't even regard some of these as "icons".
-
There will come a day they will want bundles of bundles. "We are currently accepting icons, buttons, signs, symbols, logos, labels, stamps, maps and flags, alphabet and numbers, zodiac, tattoo only submitted in groups of 25 different bundles not as individual groups or bundles."
"We are currently accepting icons, buttons, signs, symbols, logos, labels, stamps, maps and flags, alphabet and numbers, zodiac, tattoo only submitted as your entire portfolio of 1000 bundles minimum."
-
Agree. If I was a buyer, I would definitely prefer to buy a set, then every icon seperately.
Surely sets should at the very least be priced to reflect that value, by default.
-
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
-
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
Shutterstock is doing a poor job encouraging separate icon sets, there are 2 million files that show up for a search of icon sets.
This file has 3,450 icons in 47 sets http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html) and there are many many more that have over 1,000 icons per file.
-
I like your icon style :)
-
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
Shutterstock is doing a poor job encouraging separate icon sets, there are 2 million files that show up for a search of icon sets.
This file has 3,450 icons in 47 sets [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html[/url]) and there are many many more that have over 1,000 icons per file.
Gee...tickstock, who does not do vectors, still won't miss an opportunity to try to slam Shutterstock? Quelle surprise. ::)
-
Shooting themselves in the foot, IMO. SS actually encourages separate icons (at least in a recent video). DT's refusal to accept separate icons and "similars" that are similar in subject matter but not visually similar will just serve to increase the disparity between the size of their library and Shutterstock's. I already submit fewer files to them anyway; this will just discourage me further.
Shutterstock is doing a poor job encouraging separate icon sets, there are 2 million files that show up for a search of icon sets.
This file has 3,450 icons in 47 sets [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-180645041/stock-vector--icon-set.html[/url]) and there are many many more that have over 1,000 icons per file.
Gee...tickstock, who does not do vectors, still won't miss an opportunity to try to slam Shutterstock? Quelle surprise. ::)
I think bundles are bad on any site, I'd never seen some so big as when I looked at SS which I did because you said they were discouraging people from uploading icon sets. You brought SS into this discussion, not me.
-
I've actually bundled some of my best-selling icons into sets and the sets didn't sell at all. Lots of buyers are looking for one thing in particular.
-
Build your own bundle should be the option. Savings commensurate with how many you add.
-
Subs are cheap so a buyer should just pick the ones they want and buy them all. No "buy more save more" - that's cheapens them even more.
-
What would DT do if you made an icon set out of color variations of a single icon. For the camping one, for example, colors that were spring, summer, fall, winter; night vs. day and with different colored tents. I know any halfway competent Illustrator user can do that themselves, but might it give you a way to sell one piece of work in a way that DT will accept?
I'm not seeing anything encouraging in DT sales, but assuming they're doing well for you, perhaps it'd be worth an experiment?
-
The problem with that is that you're spending extra time making separate art just for Dreamstime...time that could be better spent creating entirely new images for the top sellers.
Edited to add: Besides, it looks like Mike already did that with two of his images, and they were rejected anyway.
-
I've randomly got these rejections every now and then for a long time so I don't think it is necessarily a policy change. I just ignore them and move.
-
I've randomly got these rejections every now and then for along time so I don't think it is necessarily a policy change. I just ignore them and move.
It's new to me. I had images similar to those above sail through reviews for years and all of a sudden I get this bulk rejection with this silly explanation. Maybe it isn't new policy, but it's a new thing for me. Maybe I've just been lucky to not get hit with this sooner. :)