0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
What are we?We are part of a VERY large crowd in a crowd-sourced industry.We work in an industry where the basic tools of the trade are owned by virtually everyone.We are contributing media to a pile which is larger than most people can imagine.I don't understand why so many contributors think they should be special or "precious" to these agencies. You are a face in a crowd. Infinitely replaceable.
They are a business. They do what makes the most money for them. Most businesses do. Maybe you arent cut out for microstock. Maybe you are better suited for journalism.
Quote from: cathyslife on July 20, 2020, 06:21They are a business. They do what makes the most money for them. Most businesses do. Maybe you arent cut out for microstock. Maybe you are better suited for journalism.we are also businesses. Microstock is also business, it's not like only agencies are businesses here.
Quote from: panicAttack on July 20, 2020, 09:26Quote from: cathyslife on July 20, 2020, 06:21They are a business. They do what makes the most money for them. Most businesses do. Maybe you arent cut out for microstock. Maybe you are better suited for journalism.we are also businesses. Microstock is also business, it's not like only agencies are businesses here. True, however not every contributor is a business. Some are hobbyists doing it for the attention and exposure. Then you have the contributors who are a "business" on paper but don't treat it as such and continuously undercut themselves by uploading to bottom-tier agencies.
And you also have businesses whose overhead is a small fraction of what others pay. Work will be outsourced to areas where cost of living is low and so are labor rates (and expectations of such). If you are living in a major "western" city and expect this to be any more than a hobby, you're either exceptionally talented, hard working or you are in for disappointment.
Quote from: panicAttack on July 20, 2020, 09:26Quote from: cathyslife on July 20, 2020, 06:21They are a business. They do what makes the most money for them. Most businesses do. Maybe you arent cut out for microstock. Maybe you are better suited for journalism.we are also businesses. Microstock is also business, it's not like only agencies are businesses here.And as a business, you have the ability to choose not to do business with a company that doesnt further your goals. They do whats best for them...you should to.
QuoteAnd you also have businesses whose overhead is a small fraction of what others pay. Work will be outsourced to areas where cost of living is low and so are labor rates (and expectations of such). If you are living in a major "western" city and expect this to be any more than a hobby, you're either exceptionally talented, hard working or you are in for disappointment.Even for a hobby, istock and shutterstock are not sustainable.
Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22What are we?We are part of a VERY large crowd in a crowd-sourced industry.We work in an industry where the basic tools of the trade are owned by virtually everyone.We are contributing media to a pile which is larger than most people can imagine.I don't understand why so many contributors think they should be special or "precious" to these agencies. You are a face in a crowd. Infinitely replaceable.As are stock agencies to buyers.
Well to ask for more sales or better search position is one thing but to ask for a small feature that will benefit both the contributor and the agency is another.They seem to have a policy to go against everything we ask for, no matter what it is, even if it's beneficial to them. I'm well aware of my position in this business which is comparable to an ant in an anthill run by cockroaches....
Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 09:05Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22What are we?We are part of a VERY large crowd in a crowd-sourced industry.We work in an industry where the basic tools of the trade are owned by virtually everyone.We are contributing media to a pile which is larger than most people can imagine.I don't understand why so many contributors think they should be special or "precious" to these agencies. You are a face in a crowd. Infinitely replaceable.As are stock agencies to buyers.for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do betterwhenever i encounter people who buy from stock agencies (or those who even know what stock is) their primary response is shutterstock, followed sometimes by adobe or getty, but rarely all 3 and rarely another agency
Quote from: cascoly on July 20, 2020, 14:30Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 09:05Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22What are we?We are part of a VERY large crowd in a crowd-sourced industry.We work in an industry where the basic tools of the trade are owned by virtually everyone.We are contributing media to a pile which is larger than most people can imagine.I don't understand why so many contributors think they should be special or "precious" to these agencies. You are a face in a crowd. Infinitely replaceable.As are stock agencies to buyers.for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do betterwhenever i encounter people who buy from stock agencies (or those who even know what stock is) their primary response is shutterstock, followed sometimes by adobe or getty, but rarely all 3 and rarely another agencyA greater agency today is a lesser agency tomorrow. I remember when Tony Stone was it, then Veer, then Getty, then iStock, now Shutterstock. Tomorrow, who knows? (Speaking from a buyers perspective.) Agencies rise and fall. Buyers just want a suitable image.
Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 16:07Quote from: cascoly on July 20, 2020, 14:30Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 09:05Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22What are we?We are part of a VERY large crowd in a crowd-sourced industry.We work in an industry where the basic tools of the trade are owned by virtually everyone.We are contributing media to a pile which is larger than most people can imagine.I don't understand why so many contributors think they should be special or "precious" to these agencies. You are a face in a crowd. Infinitely replaceable.As are stock agencies to buyers.for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do betterwhenever i encounter people who buy from stock agencies (or those who even know what stock is) their primary response is shutterstock, followed sometimes by adobe or getty, but rarely all 3 and rarely another agencyA greater agency today is a lesser agency tomorrow. I remember when Tony Stone was it, then Veer, then Getty, then iStock, now Shutterstock. Tomorrow, who knows? (Speaking from a buyers perspective.) Agencies rise and fall. Buyers just want a suitable image.Tony Stone was a great agency... until Getty bought them. (Speaking from a contributor's perspective), you could almost say the same about iStock apart from the bottom feeding micro perspective. Shutterstock was never great. They took bottom feeding to a whole new level and called it subscriptions.... and this is where I can say I told you so.
You must insist on AS, upload what you like, they are not perfect, they are learning, AS knows that they make mistakes and try to improve. Which did not happen in SS. You must adapt to the change, the SS did a lot of damage to everyone. Think of a new era. AS will accept your files, I am convinced.Thanks to you, for your collaboration, always contributing