MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What exactly are we to them anyway?  (Read 6068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Snow

« on: July 20, 2020, 05:09 »
+2
An annoyance?

Well besides being an asset to make them very rich in the shortest amount of time that is.

To be honest I already know the answer to that because I have known a CEO from another agency and that person told me straight up who's more important and what they think of us.

Still I'd like to ask if there is anyone here who has requested a feature where they followed up and implemented that into their website.
In other words is their policy to never listen and give in to us no matter what? In politics sure but in Microstock?

"We'll pass this on to the team" is their wording for "Right as if we're going to change something on your behalf, this goes straight into into the bin"

I've asked Shutterstock and now Adobe for very small but convenient features. Features you guys wouldn't even notice when submitting your work because it's very specific, yet nothing.

What exactly are we supposed to do here. Provide them with the highest quality and perfect keywording and take whatever they throw at us, be it money or feature wise, repeat and shut the fck up?

Sure they implement new features but rarely if ever the ones us contributors have requested. They just do as they please and continue to treat us as if we don't know a thing about this business.

"Go shoot this and keyword like that" is all I'm reading from them.

It's always the contributor at fault or that has to adapt isn't it. What do we know right?

Wrong reviews? our fault! low sales? our fault! royalty cut? coronavirus fault!

For years I have been asking myself what the h.ll I'm still doing here. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this sneaky business?

Take care!


« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2020, 06:21 »
+3
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.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2020, 06:23 »
+6
I think Adobe is doing okay in terms of adding new features and fulfilling contributors requests. Surely not everything we want or within a good timespan, but still.

The problem with corporations is getting approval from those higher up on the chain. The CEO and board/top management are always detached from the contributor base, which is partly understandable; they always have to think of the bigger picture, the major numbers, market response, etc. "Small" details like custom thumbnails or a search feature for contributors are very minor compared to that. And it's always difficult and time-consuming to run and maintain a website like this, let alone testing and implementing new features.

The bigger the company, the more rigid they become. That's why you always see the same patterns whenever a new agency is founded. The CEO/founder will happily engage with contributors on the forums in the early stages of building their company, but sooner or later, things grow bigger and priorities change. From then on everything is delegated to spokespeople and customer service departments.

« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2020, 08:22 »
+7
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.

Shelma1

« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2020, 09:05 »
+6
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.

As are stock agencies to buyers.

« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2020, 09:26 »
+1
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.

we are also businesses. Microstock is also business, it's not like only agencies are businesses here.


Snow

« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2020, 10:23 »
0
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.

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.
It's just that I like to help out and improve certain aspects but that already seems to make me pretentious  ???

But as Cathy mentioned I'm probably not cut out for this and never was (almost 10 years now) though I don't know where she got Journalism from.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2020, 10:24 »
+2
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.

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. 

« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2020, 10:26 »
+3
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.

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.

« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2020, 10:58 »
+1
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.

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.

« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2020, 11:34 »
+5
Quote
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.
Even for a hobby, istock and shutterstock are not sustainable.

« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2020, 11:50 »
+2
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.

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.

absolutely. And I'm doing the same.


MichaelMango

« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2020, 12:31 »
+1
Quote
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.
Even for a hobby, istock and shutterstock are not sustainable.
I make a reasonable monthly income from iStock, despite the criticism I see of it here. I admit I earn a lot less than I used to but my lot less is a 4 figure monthly income still with an RPD considerably better than most I see people admitting to here. I suspect a lot of the criticism is from hobbyists who would never make much anywhere.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 12:44 by MichaelMango »

« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2020, 14:30 »
0
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.

As are stock agencies to buyers.


for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do better

whenever 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

« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2020, 14:36 »
0


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....

while i agree with you, as a software developer i can understand their reluctance - even small tweaks need to go thru regression testing for unintended effects (at least for good practice) so even small changes are costly - throw in several small changes and the odds increase that something will go wrong.

otoh we see all the time software that's released w/o adequate testing (essentially users are not beta, but  alpha testers)

Shelma1

« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2020, 16:07 »
+6
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.

As are stock agencies to buyers.


for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do better

whenever 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

A 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.

wds

« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2020, 16:30 »
0
Where does higher priced stock fit into all this? I submit it's mostly a matter of curation. There is great quality stock at most microstock houses, just really hard to find it. Its seems like the magic of the curated agencies in commanding a higher price, is 90% curation and 10% content quality. Does this make sense?

Clair Voyant

« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2020, 16:33 »
+3
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.

As are stock agencies to buyers.


for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do better

whenever 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

A 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.

Shelma1

« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2020, 17:25 »
+2
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.

As are stock agencies to buyers.


for the major agencies, maybe - but if stock was fungible, the 'lesser' agencies would do better

whenever 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

A 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.

And yet here you are, posting in MicrostockGroup.

« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2020, 18:55 »
+3
In general we are supplying something that is for the most part hugely oversupplied.

I am surprised that places overhaul the contributor side of their web sites without really talking to any contributors (that is what it seems like anyway).  Some examples - the DT graph default is stacked bars - what a completely useless way of showing data that I can't imagine anyone that actually wants to get information from the graph would select - and yet that is the default.

I can understand why they don't make little tweaks that are requested - that could be a lot more work than it is worth, but when they do go making changes it is almost like they scrap what is useful and expand what isn't.  I'm sure they are spending a lot of $ on making these changes, so you would think they would do a tiny bit of research on what would actually be helpful or useful.

Snow

« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2020, 08:22 »
0
I was about to make a new thread for this but will continue here instead to avoid cluttering the forum, here goes amigos!

There's a video at this address:

https://www.crowdcast.io/e/creating-for-autumn/register?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=profile_web&utm_campaign=profile

which explains what/how to shoot.

Here lays another problem I have with these Microstock agencies since day one.
Your typical Microstock image is bright in perfect light and free from noise, vignettes etc... in other words the opposite of Fine Art yet portfolio's such as these are being promoted:

https://stock.adobe.com/be_fr/contributor/206298855/simijois

They practically drilled us to provide them the opposite of this.

Since I am mainly a Fine Art photographer this is my preferred style yet if I was to send these type of images they would get rejected without any doubt. Bad lighting, low quality or whatever they like to throw at us these days.

So I and I know there are plenty of others out there in the same position so I will say we try to avoid that artistic style and shoot plain old typical Microstock images that are being accepted but get buried because it's not what they recommend you do.

So either reviewers or support are playing us, it has to be one of them.

I would have submitted all my best work (fine art, macro,...) to them if they weren't fooling around since day one. Nowadays I split my portfolio for Micro, Macro, Fine Art, etc... and I am happy I did so.

But I do still wonder what exactly it is they want? Fine Art imagery? then reject it for bad quality? then recommend that style again if one complains about sales?

Or maybe every contributor is not allowed to shoot that kind of style? is there an elite amongst contributors? are reviewers playing dirty games here? is support messing around?

I would really like to know if some of you have had the same experience and what you think is going on.

You know this bothers me even more then all the other crap that is going on with pricing etc...
I have never ever had any use for reviews, on the contrary, because of them I and the agency I work with probably have left a lot of money on the table. Reviewers also made me lose motivation, much more so then lack of sales did so to me they are at the source of destroying this business.

Obviously there's still plenty of images that should get rejected, even if the intention was to be artistic. There's a difference between an image with perfect quality and a vignette and an oversaturated blur.

Mind you this doesn't just go for Adobe Stock but Shutterstock as well, even Macrostock and some boutiques. Many times I get images rejected, check their library and see similar but far less quality accepted.

Anyone here know the answer to this? are they just fooling around with some of us?

Thanks

Tenebroso

« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2020, 10:51 »
+1
You deal with various, complex subjects. You speak very clearly. I speak to you from the perspective of an observer, common sense, my analysis.
I think the flashy and flamboyant color, darker and vertical files need to be uploaded. In general, light colors, pastels and white background is the past.

Everything is clear, and obviously, now it is going to a dark trend, simply for offering variety.

Dark files are an obvious trend, it is simple, night vision backgrounds, black websites, the market need dark files. Adobe doesn't like bullets or filters or effects. He prefers to be used by his client in his software.

As for vertical, the percentage of vision through mobile does not represent the reality of most horizontal images, it is a matter of understanding that the designer must understand that the vast majority of images are better suited to the user in vertical. It is the largest consumption, the client consumes the internet through mobile, while those who make the web work horizontally. For me this will cascade at any time.

As for SS, and its revisions, they could drive anyone crazy. Therefore, as SS is past, our brain works as an Adobe target. Translated, we only think about 10 keywords, we are no longer terrified of similar, within a soft, normal, acceptable and the necessary spam to offer possible variations within the obviously logical.

Insist on what you think the client needs, and educate reviewers yourself, rather than the other way around. SS has created artificial images for the client, now, with the disappearance of the SS, the client is going to find what the artist offers, not the funnel that SS has created as a market monopoly.

I understand the anger, that others are allowed images and not you. You must insist, work as you are. Adobe will understand your work.

The SS decided what the client needed, I think that when SS disappears the market will be more free in every way.

Adobe will understand your files for sure. SS has been an enemy of clients, collaborators and the market. Now the market is more free and realistic. Natural, realistic, dark, colorful images........., variety and modernity.

We all have to recycle ourselves, the damage in the SS market is tragically over the years. Now, from now on, new times are coming.

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

Tenebroso

« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2020, 11:54 »
0
The artist must offer variety and common sense. Some privileged mind, an eminence, proposed years ago in SS, that a chickpea dish was more realistic, if any chickpea was off the plate.

Over time, something unsanitary, out of logic, managed to make the plate an accessory, and all like sheep, with chickpeas scattered on the table.

If a customer pays for a menu, the minimum is that it reflects a certain cleanliness, that chickpeas are on the plate, as people with a conscience, we are not going to pay for chickpeas on the table, we pay for chickpeas on the plate.

Customers saw normal, chickpeas on the table, it was a monopoly, what you saw, but the reality is, not even a pig can bear an image of such crap and lack of common sense.

SS has destroyed the microstock, and the market is going to stabilize.

Snow

« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2020, 12:45 »
+1
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

I hope you are right about Adobe my friend, thanks for all your input!

Tenebroso

« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2020, 13:10 »
0
Those who understand their work are the ones who work. You have commented that your contributions and suggestions are not listened to by the agencies.

You know that I am creating a group to sell directly without intermediaries. I will gladly listen to all your suggestions, ideas and knowledge. For my group, all suggestions and ideas are welcome. Your talent and that of the rest of the companions is my guide.

I will send you an invitation in time in private and I look forward to working together to find new paths. Everything is slow, but I'm trying to do it. It would be a privilege and honor for me to enjoy your experience.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle