Agency Based Discussion > General - Top Sites
What exactly are we to them anyway?
Shelma1:
--- Quote from: cascoly on July 20, 2020, 14:30 ---
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 09:05 ---
--- Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22 ---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.
--- End quote ---
As are stock agencies to buyers.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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 buyer’s perspective.) Agencies rise and fall. Buyers just want a suitable image.
wds:
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:
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 16:07 ---
--- Quote from: cascoly on July 20, 2020, 14:30 ---
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 09:05 ---
--- Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22 ---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.
--- End quote ---
As are stock agencies to buyers.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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 buyer’s perspective.) Agencies rise and fall. Buyers just want a suitable image.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Clair Voyant on July 20, 2020, 16:33 ---
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 16:07 ---
--- Quote from: cascoly on July 20, 2020, 14:30 ---
--- Quote from: Shelma1 on July 20, 2020, 09:05 ---
--- Quote from: Copidosoma on July 20, 2020, 08:22 ---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.
--- End quote ---
As are stock agencies to buyers.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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 buyer’s perspective.) Agencies rise and fall. Buyers just want a suitable image.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
And yet here you are, posting in MicrostockGroup.
pancaketom:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version