MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: Beppe Grillo on March 17, 2013, 06:57
-
I have got a rejection (with possibility of resubmit) on Dreamstime with the following message:
"- You already have several very similar images in your portfolio or approved within this batch. If approved, these files will compete against each other for downloads thus diluting your sales"
I don't understand well, and for what I can understand I am not sure that I agree with this.
If I have similar, but not the same, images I will give to the customer more possibility to buy.
If the customer wants to buy 1 image and there is 1 image he will buy this one.
It the customer wants to buy 1 image and has the choice between 3 images he will be satisfied because he has more choice, and maybe he could be interested to buy more than one image then.
If i I sell 1 photo 3 times and if I sell 3 photos 1 time what is the difference? (and I could even sell 3 photos 3 times…)
And btw what is their criterions to decide which one of the similar images will sell better?
-
you are not the only one.
Dreamstime does that.
-
I am not sure, but maybe it is a question of rank.
If you sell 1 image more times your rank will be higher
If you sell more images 1 time your rank will not change
????
-
You are not alone! Nobody, I mean nobody, understands this rejection, for all the reasons you explained. It is the biggest flaw in Dreamstime. It has been suggested that this kind of rejection is automated, not from your image, but from identical descriptions, and/or keywords. Quite possibly your image was never actually viewed.
Here's what I do to get around this kind of rejection. When you submit, make sure your titles and descriptions are all different. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you describe it. Eliminate any keywords that actually describe the image. Use only generic keywords. (object, landscape, still life, macro, color, ingredient, etc.)
Once accepted, go back and properly name and describe the photo. Then add all the normal and relevant keywords. By then, it will be too late to be rejected. It's ridiculous that Dreamstime makes contributors go through this, but it does work.
-
^
I cannot imagine to do such a work on Dreamstime for an upload of 150 images that I will probably sell less than $ 1
-
That is right.
You should time you effords, and not waste time on strange ideosyncracies of strange agencies.
If they want to do business in a certain way, they are free to do so.
maybe its smart, maybe its not.
As a photographer you should seek out the agencies and acceptance barriers that suit your sales best.
-
That's one of the main complaints I have read about DT:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dt%27s-official-policy-on-%27similars%27 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dt%27s-official-policy-on-%27similars%27)
but also:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/change-in-similars-policy (http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/change-in-similars-policy)
Seems to be pretty random.
-
^
I cannot imagine to do such a work on Dreamstime for an upload of 150 images that I will probably sell less than $ 1
If you are trying to upload 150 images from the same photoshoot, you might want to consider moving on to a different subject. ;)
-
^
It is not the same photo of the same subject, they are different photos of different subjects, but about one theme.
A kind of collection if you prefer.
(Imagine 150 coffee cups all different… they still are coffee cups, but… ;) )
------
And thank you ShadySue for the links
-
Worrying about rejections is a recipe for insanity forget it and get on with the next shoot :)
-
I think the rejection should sometimes read:-
"We've picked one of your images that may or may not be the most interesting to buyers but even though any sensible person would think the others are nothing like it, we're rejecting them. We're ignoring the fact that this is going to annoy you, make you less likely to carry on uploading new images and is a huge waste of your time. Even though its almost impossible to tell what buyers want, we've made that choice for them and they wont see any alternatives that might be much more appropriate for their project. If you do have any boring dull landscapes that will never make any money, we're far more likely to accept those than your more commercial images that would probably sell well."
-
Dreamstime - we offer less choices than the other stock sites!
-
Translation: "In the interest of reducing reviewing time - which costs us money - we're rejecting most of your images right off the top and accepting only the one that someone thinks might generate the most sales. "
-
very much the norm on DT. I had one shot that was a poor image of a rare coin (Taken last year) that I redid and removed my older photo before submitting the newer one (no sales and a few views) and guess what? Yeap, got the same rejection now I don't even have one photo of this coin within my portfolio.
-
for all its failings, YAY is far worse -- they issue 'too many similars' rejections even when there are absolutely NO other images (or titles) in the portfolio even remotely similar! no response to multiple requests for clarification
-
for all its failings, YAY is far worse -- they issue 'too many similars' rejections even when there are absolutely NO other images (or titles) in the portfolio even remotely similar! no response to multiple requests for clarification
how is it worse if you have 7k vs 4k at DT? or are you talking about earnings? or just last week rejections?
-
Dreamstime - we offer less choices than the other stock sites!
Too many options and choices confuse buyers, we are forced to limit the collection to what one reviewers opinion and subjectivity decides is best.
Also this will solve the problem for artists trying to decide what to upload. We will decide for you based on our narrow opinion and save you all that thinking.
This is for your own good...
The policy is essentially part of the "Ministry of Truth" theory from 1984. :)
true freedom - freedom of choice, speech, religion, etc. - means you have too many choices and are thus a slave to all the possibilities available to you, and to those who provide them for you. by limiting the choices you have you are actually "free" from being a "slave".
See how that works? DT is looking out for not only us, but the buyers as well. They free us from the responsibility of too many choices.
-
I forgot the part about how their acceptance rate effects search placement. So I have to guess what the inspector is likely to accept or I'll ruin my acceptance rate and my images will get worse search placement. My solution is to hardly ever upload anything but I can't see how that's good for DT or my earnings.
If they switched to accepting a lot more images but marking the ones they think aren't commercial for automatic removal after a year, they would get more uploads and buyers could decide if an image is what they want or not. That's a simple solution that should give DT a real boost. If they don't change something soon, I think it will be too late. SS is just going to carry on making more money for contributors and more of us will think it isn't worth the effort to upload to sites like DT. I hope that doesn't happen, as I like having several sites with good earnings.
-
but what is also mystifying is if you do a random search you can easily find ports that are chock o block with similars (and dumb ones too).
The funniest one is when they reject them all for being too similar to each other, and none get through.
In that case I just wait a few months and submit one or two again, if I can be bothered.
(I also had this exact thing happen today with Fotolia)
-
"If approved, these files will compete against each other for downloads thus diluting your sales"
They should include checkboxes:
Do you care if your files compete against eachother?
( ) Yes
( ) No
-
Forgive the ignorance - does DT have a system whereby files get a bonus when they reach certain sales points?
Otherwise, if someone buys my file Aa or file Ab, I get the money, DT gets the money, and the buyer had a choice.
-
Sue, Files at DT reach different levels based on the number of sales, which changes their price for non-subscription downloads. You'll find the details at http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages (http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages).
-
Sue, Files at DT reach different levels based on the number of sales, which changes their price for non-subscription downloads. You'll find the details at [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages[/url]).
Thanks, I can see the logic in that.
It doesn't necessarily serve the buyer best, though.
-
I wonder if there's a viscous circle going on? It looks like subs sales make pay per download prices higher and make more buyers switch to using subs. Unlike some of the other subs sites that accept almost everything I upload, DT have the similars restriction that stops subs buyers buying licenses for many more images than they use. That's not bad for DT, as they make more money if subs buyers don't download as much as they could. Its disastrous for us, as we're losing the nice pay per download commissions and getting less subs sales than we would if the buyers could access our full portfolio.
-
Serban - do you read this forum at all?
Do you guys get the concept of how designers actually work? How long is it going to take before someone realises that designers actually like and want similars!
Let's say you have a brochure to produce, and you find one appropriate image to use on the cover. Let's say it's a picture of a business person standing in a forest with a hard hat.
Great, you have a cover picture for your brochure. Now what about the other pages?
On other agencies the designer will find the same businessman. The forest is the same, the lighting is the same. Only this time his hard hat is in his hand. Then his hand is on his chin. No, wait, there is a better one, he is scratching his head, thinking. That's perfect for the second inside page. Then more "similars". Now of a new model, a woman perhaps, doing the same thing in the same forest.
"Yipee!" thinks the designer. "There are a whole lot of "similars" upon which we can build our client's brand and campain. Similars we can use on the website too - not the same, but similars which have brand association. Let's download the whole lot," they say.
Just not from DT, because, there is only one or two of a series of 20 that DT will actually accept. So they download all the images, or a lot of "similars". Contributors know designers like to do this, because we sell at other agencies where downloads of batches of similars happens frequently.
Your daft "similars" policy is costing you and your contrbutors $$$. Worse, you are limiting your product offering to customers - who can always go somewhere else to get all the images (cheaper) from a series you have been offered, but refuse to make available.
-
@Alistair: No, I don't read these forums, sorry. Got your link though.
@OP: without any examples this is just venting, no offense.
Alistair, we find these to be a usual case of replicating content. Good content but identical nevertheless. Many good photographers do this unfortunately, in order to compensate volume. They switch roles with the designer when they shouldn't.
...
admin edit: images removed per the owner's request
...
Same is happening for almost every recent file in your portfolio. The files are good, but we're a stock photography website not a template provider for designers. How many are too many? Why 4 and not 10? You might disagree with our policies, very well, nobody forces you to like them. We explained the reasons behind these rules countless times, can we move on?
-
Wow, bad practice publishing someone's rejected images. Can you do that? Nevertheless, bad practice and quite an arrogant response. I am not expecting anything else from DT though. SMH
-
Right ponke.
Archilles... Did alistair not even make you think about your policy?
-
... but we're a stock photography website not a template provider for designers.
I agree that you are a stock agency not a template site but would argue the opposite way. Accepting just the one image is simply providing a template for designers to use.. accepting them all is providing a finished product, ready to be used... stock photography. Lots of designers know how to use Photoshop but many image buyers (especially microstock buyers) just want something simple that they can use right away. They don't want to have to edit it themselves.
You also chose an image which was easy to modify, the guy in the forest example is quite a bit harder to create variations.
-
wow - sounds like someone needs a course in PR...
-
Many good photographers do this unfortunately, in order to compensate volume.
Many good designers need this, in order to have more possibilities to find the image that will fit better to their layout.
(Is it so difficult to understand this?)
-
PLUS to modernize their port so that the poor customer does not have to choose the same old photo again and again.
-
Edited message: MSG - please take my image down in the post above. I think I asked nicely, but the request has been ignored by the poster above.
I've sent a message to admin - but I don't think anyone is "in". If there is a forum admin who can make a call to action - please do.
-
So an official from Dreamstime published files that he did not hold the copyright for.
How bad can it be?
Dont they have any limits? Do they think they are kings?
Shame on you Archilles and Dreamstime.
-
DMCA
-
Alistair, we find these to be a usual case of replicating content. .............
Wow. This makes me exceedingly glad that I have had the good sense to never grace any forum with my real name/portfolio links! Apparently it makes the target practice for rude, arrogant agency reps way too easy.
-
I have sent a message to Dreamstime:
Attn.: Dreamstime HR.
Please note that a Dreamstime representative, Achilles, acts very improfessionally at the MSG forum.
+ a link to this thread.
-
I have sent a message to Dreamstime:
Attn.: Dreamstime HR.
Please note that a Dreamstime representative, Achilles, acts very improfessionally at the MSG forum.
+ a link to this thread.
Achilles is Serban and he owns DT.
-
I hope I'm not offending anyone now but I understand Dreamstime in this case. Im am also a buyer since 2005 and buy only at Dreamstime and never had a case were I needed more options. I would have bought the black version with no text on it. In the 8 years I am buying from them I never bought an image with added content. And if most designers work like I do they create an idea in their head and will look for the isolated image on black or white to use for that concept. And if I would search an image and for every image I get 5 versions the search results would be overwelming! The diversaty would not be great and I would see less images. So no offence... But I would do the same if I had a stock company.
And as a contributor I also had some of these rekections. But also some cases I don't agree with. But I see it like this. Dreamstime is helping me make money. So if it's on there termes so be it.
Please don't shoot me for my opinion. ;)
-
<Bang!>
Only joking - it doesn't serve any of us to shoot the buyers. ;D
-
I hope I'm not offending anyone now but I understand Dreamstime in this case. Im am also a buyer since 2005 and buy only at Dreamstime and never had a case were I needed more options. I would have bought the black version with no text on it. In the 8 years I am buying from them I never bought an image with added content. And if most designers work like I do they create an idea in their head and will look for the isolated image on black or white to use for that concept. And if I would search an image and for every image I get 5 versions the search results would be overwelming! The diversaty would not be great and I would see less images. So no offence... But I would do the same if I had a stock company.
And as a contributor I also had some of these rekections. But also some cases I don't agree with. But I see it like this. Dreamstime is helping me make money. So if it's on there termes so be it.
Please don't shoot me for my opinion. ;)
There are also a lot of photoshop noobs or non-designers looking for images and they will be delighted to find a ready product and even multiple choices to choose from.
-
I hope I'm not offending anyone now but I understand Dreamstime in this case. Im am also a buyer since 2005 and buy only at Dreamstime and never had a case were I needed more options. I would have bought the black version with no text on it. In the 8 years I am buying from them I never bought an image with added content. And if most designers work like I do they create an idea in their head and will look for the isolated image on black or white to use for that concept. And if I would search an image and for every image I get 5 versions the search results would be overwelming! The diversaty would not be great and I would see less images. So no offence... But I would do the same if I had a stock company.
And as a contributor I also had some of these rekections. But also some cases I don't agree with. But I see it like this. Dreamstime is helping me make money. So if it's on there termes so be it.
Please don't shoot me for my opinion. ;)
There are also a lot of photoshop noobs or non-designers looking for images and they will be delighted to find a ready product and even multiple choices to choose from.
But where do you draw the line? This is but one example. I am sure that this could get some perpetual motion behind it and the site would be chock full of these kind of images. I have a s_hit load of images like this where I could do the same thing by adding PS elements. In fact I could double my portfolio conducting this kind of tactic. So, for me, Serban is probably doing the right thing because this kind of "templating" would be hard to define and we'd thus see a ton of the same exact images with added elements, some probably useful and some not. I think he is stopping this at the root cause for fear this kind of thing could perpetuate into something for which it wasn't intended (if he allowed it, of course).
Now if the OP repositioned the child for the added elements images and it was a "different" aesthetic shot, he could send that in. I don't think Serban is saying you can't do this, he is saying don't do it with the same exact image....at least that's my interpretation.
-
I hope I'm not offending anyone now but I understand Dreamstime in this case. Im am also a buyer since 2005 and buy only at Dreamstime and never had a case were I needed more options. I would have bought the black version with no text on it. In the 8 years I am buying from them I never bought an image with added content. And if most designers work like I do they create an idea in their head and will look for the isolated image on black or white to use for that concept. And if I would search an image and for every image I get 5 versions the search results would be overwelming! The diversaty would not be great and I would see less images. So no offence... But I would do the same if I had a stock company.
And as a contributor I also had some of these rekections. But also some cases I don't agree with. But I see it like this. Dreamstime is helping me make money. So if it's on there termes so be it.
Please don't shoot me for my opinion. ;)
Who can more… can less…
So better have more than less.
If you don't need more images you will just take the one you need.
If you need more images of a series it is good that you can find it. And this don't create any trouble or damage to whom needs only one image.
So, what is the problem?
And you cannot generalize your specific case.
As I cannot generalize mine.
These last 6 years I have worked as Art/Creative Director for an editorial group.
We have magazines for men, for women (weekly and monthly) about politics and business, about sport and about events (TV - show, etc.).
We are very great consumers of images, directly from the photographers and from the stocks too.
We often use series as they are very useful to create stories or use as thread.
And this are real needs, real facts, not only opinion.
-
Well, Achilles has shown an example of what he says is typical. Let me show you an example of what I find is typical, for me, on the similar rejections.
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz187/rimglow/Candle2_zps0a0651c7.jpg) (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/rimglow/media/Candle2_zps0a0651c7.jpg.html)
-
you have copied the flame Danny, bad bad bad boy, that is why you had rejection for similar ;D
(just in case, I am being sarcastic)
-
Guilty.
-
Grande Beppe, chi l'avrebbe detto che con tutti gli impegni politici avresti avuto il tempo di occuparti di Dreamstime ;)
(Sorry for non-italians: I've made a joke about the nickname of OP)
-
I have sent a message to Dreamstime:
Attn.: Dreamstime HR.
Please note that a Dreamstime representative, Achilles, acts very improfessionally at the MSG forum.
+ a link to this thread.
Achilles is Serban and he owns DT.
That makes it worse.
They can have what ever policy they want, that does not bother me. But it bothers me that those pictures were published.
-
... but we're a stock photography website not a template provider for designers. ...
With all due respect Achilles, but this is unsubstantiated.
Other agencies prove that buyers look for and buy similar images. We can tell because this is how we make our money!!!
If you are seriously only providing "stock images" and NOT "templates" - please do us a favor and remove all images of an apple except one!!! Or better:
Remove all images of a business man except ONE!
Remove all images of a business woman except ONE!
Remove all images of a business meeting except ONE!
Remove all images of a XXX except ONE!
Because apparently ALL of Dreamstime's buyers are designers. Really?
If I can provide newer, better versions of an existing best seller (of mine), what is the logical reason to reject it because it is competing with an image from my own portfolio.
AS IF I DON'T KNOW THAT!!! That's why I'm uploading a better version so I can get MORE downloads.
This is insane!!!! I can't believe what you posted...
-
... but we're a stock photography website not a template provider for designers. ...
With all due respect Achilles, but this is unsubstantiated.
Other agencies prove that buyers look for and buy similar images. We can tell because this is how we make our money!!!
If you are seriously only providing "stock images" and NOT "templates" - please do us a favor and remove all images of an apple except one!!! Or better:
Remove all images of a business man except ONE!
Remove all images of a business woman except ONE!
Remove all images of a business meeting except ONE!
Remove all images of a XXX except ONE!
Because apparently ALL of Dreamstime's buyers are designers. Really?
If I can provide newer, better versions of an existing best seller (of mine), what is the logical reason to reject it because it is competing with an image from my own portfolio.
AS IF I DON'T KNOW THAT!!! That's why I'm uploading a better version so I can get MORE downloads.
This is insane!!!! I can't believe what you posted...
That's what I don't get. It seems that all contributors are allowed to compete against my own previously uploaded images .... except me. If I've uploaded that subject before, even if the new series are vastly superior, they frequently get rejected for being 'similars'.
That's why I haven't uploaded to DT for over 2 years.
-
Edited message: MSG - please take my image down in the post above. I think I asked nicely, but the request has been ignored by the poster above.
I've sent a message to admin - but I don't think anyone is "in". If there is a forum admin who can make a call to action - please do.
Sorry, I wasn't online earlier today (believe it or not I do step away from the computer once in a while).
I've removed the images now.
-
That's what I don't get. It seems that all contributors are allowed to compete against my own previously uploaded images .... except me. If I've uploaded that subject before, even if the new series are vastly superior, they frequently get rejected for being 'similars'....
Exactly my thinking!
-
Dreamstime always comes on like they know what sells. I've got one image rejected image from DT that has been downloaded 200% more on SS than my all time total downloads on DT.
-
Today I had a very nice surprise: I have some double images in my DT portfolio!…
Not similar images, exactly the same.
Sure that they will "compete against each other for downloads thus diluting [my] sales"
BTW I don't know how to delete/deactivate these doubles.