Agency Based Discussion > General - Top Sites

What exactly are we to them anyway?

(1/6) > >>

Snow:
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!

cathyslife:
They are a business. They do what makes the most money for them. Most businesses do. Maybe you aren’t cut out for microstock. Maybe you are better suited for journalism.

Noedelhap:
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.

Copidosoma:
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:

--- 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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page