pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: absolute despair  (Read 25218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 22, 2011, 09:48 »
0
After getting the results of a recent handfull of submissions to SS and DT, I realize that I need to stop this humiliating, self-destructive behavior - I need to quit doing microstock photos. Please help me.


There were no technical problems with any of the photos. 

SS took the common subjects; the unusual had "low commerical value".  A keyword search shows dozens of the same subject and mine is better than any of them.  But they'd rather just keep selling the old [email protected]

DT accepted the oddball subject, rejected the more common ones as "not what we're looking for" "too many in series".  Yes I have several older shots of this subject matter, they sell well, that's why I spent time coming up with this nice new take.  They don't want it.

GL: took them all, even put a few in their "GL collection".  I think my last sale was in August.

CC:  2 years, 20 cents.

IS: I quit dealing with them.  My sales tanked there anyway.


If I can't be reasonably confident of getting my photos accepted by both SS and DT there's no longer any possibility of making them pay off.  And as of today I don't know what these agencies want, and I don't think they know, either.

I need to walk away now. I need to move on.   


« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2011, 09:54 »
0
you dont look ok I do know you from here and you never seem positive.. if you arent happy and you arent willing to shoot other subjects I would leave, if you arent having good returns (sales trend etc) I would change or leave, there arent many options, if I wasnt dealing with all agencies I wouldnt be doing stock and trying every month, they are all part of the income, I am sure you were at FT and 123RF but you quit?

wish you the best
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 09:56 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2011, 10:26 »
0
you dont look ok I do know you from here and you never seem positive.. if you arent happy and you arent willing to shoot other subjects I would leave, if you arent having good returns (sales trend etc) I would change or leave, there arent many options, if I wasnt dealing with all agencies I wouldnt be doing stock and trying every month, they are all part of the income, I am sure you were at FT and 123RF but you quit?

wish you the best

I decided FT wasn't a totally honest business, and I didn't want my photos in the hands of all their shady "partner" sites, so I left.    I tried 123RF for a while but sales were too small to bother.  You are right, there aren't many options left for microstock.  The new ones aren't selling, the big ones are becoming too hard  to deal with. 


   

traveler1116

« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2011, 11:08 »
0
A keyword search shows dozens of the same subject and mine is better than any of them.  But they'd rather just keep selling the old [email protected]

Are you sure yours is better than any of them?  I find it hard to believe that shutterstock would turn down amazing new images to keep selling old [email protected]  Why not post some examples for critique.

rinderart

« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2011, 12:32 »
0
Post them In the critique section at SS. we really are there to help but, be aware were gonna tell you what we think, Not what perhaps you wanna hear. We might be able to pinpoint your rejection reasons. Quite a few of us have been reviewers ourselves. But either way Good Luck and just remember Not everyone is cut out for this, being able to take a decent Photo is just a small part of the puzzle.

« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2011, 12:48 »
0
My small portfolio has actually been selling pretty well at DT, SS and IS for 2 years.   I feel like I have some knowledge of what will sell, and I get very few technical rejections.

But things have changed at the agencies and now I get rejections from DT and SS for "low commercial value", "too many similar", and "not what we're looking for" on photos that would have been easily approved in the past.   Combine that with commissions being so low, and the loss of IS, and there's no longer any way to win.  

I need you folks to ridicule, abuse and berate me so that I give up this foolishness and find other outlets for my skill and creativity.  Let me have it!
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 13:13 by stockastic »

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2011, 13:47 »
0
My small portfolio has actually been selling pretty well at DT, SS and IS for 2 years.   I feel like I have some knowledge of what will sell, and I get very few technical rejections.

But things have changed at the agencies and now I get rejections from DT and SS for "low commercial value", "too many similar", and "not what we're looking for" on photos that would have been easily approved in the past.   Combine that with commissions being so low, and the loss of IS, and there's no longer any way to win.  

I need you folks to ridicule, abuse and berate me so that I give up this foolishness and find other outlets for my skill and creativity.  Let me have it!



That's Stocktastic!

I'm getting to the same place:

I need you folks to ridicule, abuse and berate me so that I give up this foolishness and find other outlets for my skill and creativity.  Let me have it!

You see here's my problem, the Microstock agencies keep taking my pictures and they keep selling, and I figure that's really wrong! If they take my MockStock, how can they refuse something from some of the people here who are serious and trying?  ???
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 14:21 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2011, 13:58 »
0
My advice: Don't care. Just upload to a lot of places (this way all of your images are avalaible for download at least at some sites), never look what has been accepted or rejected, especially not the reasons behind the rejections. Just keep stuff you KNOW is good and stop worrying.

« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2011, 14:02 »
0
I am starting to abominate some folks, I am getting quite pissed about photographers telling that stock is this and that, come on, whats the difficult of getting some pictures online?? isolations, people?? zero, zero, zero! the hard part is to continue the supply while agencies they keep on screwing us, the problem aint producing the pictures, they dont have to be insanely good to get approved (just need to be average), tons of crap approved, isolations not done properly, backgrounds not cleaned, tons of white space, flat lighting, etc etc (and I am not talking about making big bucks, you can say that some upload a lot to earn just a few bucks etc but in the hand thats not even your business, what the heck do you guys know about others life, etc etc, you guys are just a bunch of bullys that wont go anywhere beside in your own head)

one day some say stock is art, other say stock aint art, stock is nothing, etc etc I really dont get some people in this industry but for sure they have something behind that ridiculous speech

this comment aint intended to you stockastic, you are just getting into a phase, it will go away, if you say you dont need help I do believe in that, I understand perfectly what you are saying, you, myself dont need workshops/books from the stock shooters that pretend to be in the top of the world, I love humble people maybe that why I get upset with some attitudes

« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2011, 14:03 »
0
My advice: Don't care. Just upload to a lot of places (this way all of your images are avalaible for download at least at some sites), never look what has been accepted or rejected, especially not the reasons behind the rejections. Just keep stuff you KNOW is good and stop worrying.

never enjoyed a post of yours, today you are spot on, hope you let me in your humble house :)

« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2011, 14:15 »
0
I agree that the rejection/acceptance criteria seem to have changed. They have always been somewhat arbitrary in that what is rejected one day might be accepted the next and vice versa. The fact that many of my older smaller (crappier? some of them anyway) imaged continue to sell makes me think that there is more to sales than just image quality. It sure is frustrating to improve upon an old decent seller and have it rejected for LCV (which I agree w/ Laurin is a bit of a cop out rejection reason). I also think that DT is going overboard on what they consider "too similar". I'm not quite as immune as Perry to the rejection reasons - I usually look at them and back at the pics to see if I agree and if I could fix it, but ultimately they just get sent to all my sites and some take them and some don't and some sell them and some don't (at least not yet).

If the present trends continue I don't think that there will be much of a point in working at micro for many of us - between the dropping royalties at places like IS and FT and the lack of acceptances and new image sales at SS and DT... It will be worth leaving the old images up and collecting the $ though. Personally I'll just keep an eye on how things go (and what my alternatives are) and when it is no longer worth it I'll stop or at least cut down my effort a lot. Meanwhile I might grumble and rant a bit, but I have had more BMEs this year than any in a while, so it isn't all doom and gloom.

As an aside, I have always wanted to post my best sellers on the critique forum and let the critics say everything that is wrong with them and how they won't be accepted etc. (or maybe they would say they are good stock - submit them, but I have my doubts).

« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2011, 14:54 »
0
I am starting to abominate some folks, I am getting quite pissed about photographers telling that stock is this and that, come on, whats the difficult of getting some pictures online?? isolations, people?? zero, zero, zero! the hard part is to continue the supply while agencies they keep on screwing us, the problem aint producing the pictures, they dont have to be insanely good to get approved (just need to be average), tons of crap approved, isolations not done properly, backgrounds not cleaned, tons of white space, flat lighting, etc etc (and I am not talking about making big bucks, you can say that some upload a lot to earn just a few bucks etc but in the hand thats not even your business, what the heck do you guys know about others life, etc etc, you guys are just a bunch of bullys that wont go anywhere beside in your own head)

one day some say stock is art, other say stock aint art, stock is nothing, etc etc I really dont get some people in this industry but for sure they have something behind that ridiculous speech

this comment aint intended to you stockastic, you are just getting into a phase, it will go away, if you say you dont need help I do believe in that, I understand perfectly what you are saying, you, myself dont need workshops/books from the stock shooters that pretend to be in the top of the world, I love humble people maybe that why I get upset with some attitudes

We should be concerned about some of the changes the stock sites have been making.  Ask yourself how your high earning graphics are doing at the top three.  Has there been a drop for those of late.  We should also be worried about what they are accepting and not accepting and why.  We should be asking ourselves why the likes of Sandra and crowd are getting rejections for focus and LCV; while images are accepted every day at the much lower quality you so aptly described!

By the way, I appreciate your ethical stance, enthusiasm and work ethic.

« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2011, 16:16 »
0
My advice: Don't care. Just upload to a lot of places (this way all of your images are avalaible for download at least at some sites), never look what has been accepted or rejected, especially not the reasons behind the rejections. Just keep stuff you KNOW is good and stop worrying.

Now there you go with that rational, sane, self-actualization stuff.  :-)

My self esteem is fine, the problem is I wanted to ramp up my efforts and make some money.   I wrote off IS and FT (as jerks and crooks, respectively), gave up on CC, and decided to go with just SS, DT and GL.  But now that SS and DT have tightened the screws on subject matter,  there's no longer any real possibility of it paying off. 

I need another site with significant sales to replace IS.  I feel like it's the end of the road.

rinderart

« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2011, 23:45 »
0

« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2011, 03:27 »
0
What is tha posted image supposed to be?  Why would the typical micro buyer download it?  LCV means low commercial value, yes?  Low, not zero?  So it may sell for a quarter one time in two years.  Who wants a collection full of cintent like that?  If you're wrong %3 of the time, so what, if a tighter collection draws more overall as a user experience.

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2011, 03:52 »
0
I'm with Sean on this one, the link is a pretty good example of why the LCV rejection is useful for a reviewer.
What would you use it to sell?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 04:01 by Microbius »

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2011, 08:30 »
0
What is tha posted image supposed to be?  Why would the typical micro buyer download it?  LCV means low commercial value, yes?  Low, not zero?  So it may sell for a quarter one time in two years.  Who wants a collection full of cintent like that?  If you're wrong %3 of the time, so what, if a tighter collection draws more overall as a user experience.

Yes exactly. As designers we come up with concepts for artwork and we need source material to do them. We look to stock agencies to provide that source and our imaginations can run wild as long as all we imagine are smiling people standing in front of white backgrounds. God forbid we need source material that's a little more obscure because that would be low commerical value and it just ain't there. What a valuable resource microstock is if you need a smiling girl holding a cell phone or a smiling girl shaking hands or a smiling group of doctors on a white background. That might be why I bought a DSLR in the first place because my imagination is a little broader than that and it's the only way I can get what I need.

Good job photographers of smiling people you have images of "high commercial value".


digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2011, 08:41 »
0
I'm with Sean on this one, the link is a pretty good example of why the LCV rejection is useful for a reviewer.
What would you use it to sell?

What indeed. Why, you'd need some kind of... oh I don't know, some kind of "imagination" or something to find a use for an image that doesn't include a smiling girl. How dare those designers expect to find a variety of subjects on a stock site? They should only need the same things everyone else ever needs "smiling people".  Daaaammnn that imagination, what has it ever done for anyone.

« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2011, 09:10 »
0
I'm with Sean on this one, the link is a pretty good example of why the LCV rejection is useful for a reviewer.
What would you use it to sell?

What indeed. Why, you'd need some kind of... oh I don't know, some kind of "imagination" or something to find a use for an image that doesn't include a smiling girl. How dare those designers expect to find a variety of subjects on a stock site? They should only need the same things everyone else ever needs "smiling people".  Daaaammnn that imagination, what has it ever done for anyone.

Yeah, but there is a difference between something being able to meet one designer's need and something having "high commercial value". The commercial value is about how much cash an agency might expect it to make for them.
Stock isn't really there to meet every need of every designer. It is there to provide for what many designers commonly want. There are also an infinite number of swirly-colour possibilities, anyone can churn them out and a site doesn't want to hold a million images to meet a demand for 10,000 licences a year. That would mean 1% of the collection was having to pay for storage and administration of the other 99%.

« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2011, 11:13 »
0
That would mean 1% of the collection was having to pay for storage and administration of the other 99%.

uh oh.... time for "occupy MSG"?

« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2011, 12:20 »
0
What is tha posted image supposed to be?  Why would the typical micro buyer download it?  LCV means low commercial value, yes?  Low, not zero?  So it may sell for a quarter one time in two years.  Who wants a collection full of cintent like that?  If you're wrong %3 of the time, so what, if a tighter collection draws more overall as a user experience.

Yes exactly. As designers we come up with concepts for artwork and we need source material to do them. We look to stock agencies to provide that source and our imaginations can run wild as long as all we imagine are smiling people standing in front of white backgrounds. God forbid we need source material that's a little more obscure because that would be low commerical value and it just ain't there. What a valuable resource microstock is if you need a smiling girl holding a cell phone or a smiling girl shaking hands or a smiling group of doctors on a white background. That might be why I bought a DSLR in the first place because my imagination is a little broader than that and it's the only way I can get what I need.

Good job photographers of smiling people you have images of "high commercial value".

+1 

I live near the Mall of America which is a vast cross-section of retail concepts.  Over the years I've noticed this pattern:  a new store opens, with an offbeat theme and some unusual products on display.  As time goes by, the products become more generic as the store focuses on the things that generated most of the sales; the unique, higher-priced items are relegated to the display window, then eventually disappear.  After a few years, the store has pretty much lost its identity and is selling the same sweatshirts, tees and athletic shoes as a dozen other stores.  And finally the store disappears entirely.

« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2011, 13:43 »
0
I live near the Mall of America which is a vast cross-section of retail concepts.  Over the years I've noticed this pattern:  a new store opens, with an offbeat theme and some unusual products on display.  As time goes by, the products become more generic as the store focuses on the things that generated most of the sales; the unique, higher-priced items are relegated to the display window, then eventually disappear.  After a few years, the store has pretty much lost its identity and is selling the same sweatshirts, tees and athletic shoes as a dozen other stores.  And finally the store disappears entirely.

So, in summary, you believe that the best route to long-term success in microstock is to produce quirky 'unique' content that hardly anyone wants buy, if only those pesky reviewers would let you?

The title of this thread tells me all I need to know about your philosophy. <walks away shaking head>

« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2011, 13:57 »
0
GL: took them all, even put a few in their "GL collection".  I think my last sale was in August.
GL has the best reviewing in microstock, so I am guessing that indeed your images should have been accepted at all sites.
IMO the microstock industry has a real problem with reviewing. I think the philosophy should be something close to this:
1. If it is legal
2. And if it has no real technical (as opposed to subjective) issues which are not apparent in the thumbnail (and so might give a buyer a real excuse to say that they didn't know what they were getting)
then accept it and let the buyers decide if they want to buy it or not.


And if the inventories of microstock sites get too large (although I am not sure what that means really - too many choices? - how can you have too many choices?) then cull them by deleting old images which have not sold.

« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2011, 14:28 »
0
And if the inventories of microstock sites get too large (although I am not sure what that means really - too many choices? - how can you have too many choices?)...

Exactly.  The number of images in the database is irrelevant, all that matters is what 'search' delivers.  Think of how many products are available through Amazon.com.  They don't restrict it to 'top sellers' or reject products they think have limited appeal, because physical inventory isn't a problem for them, and there's virtually no cost to generating the web page for the product.  All that matters is that they make a profit on each transaction.  And maybe not even that, because they want to be seen as the one place where you can find anything you want.   They don't try to profile their customers and cater their offerings to what they think the big spenders want to see.  They just want to sell everything to everyone.

If the microstocks feel they can't operate this way, it's because their existing search technology isn't sophisticated enough.

Of course these agencies can reject whatever they want.  My despair is because - now that I've written off IS, and SS and DT are starting to reject my stuff for perceived LCV -  I no longer have enough of a market to make this worthwhile - until maybe some new sites start getting some traction.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 15:42 by stockastic »

« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2011, 17:05 »
0
What is tha posted image supposed to be?  Why would the typical micro buyer download it?  LCV means low commercial value, yes?  Low, not zero?  So it may sell for a quarter one time in two years.  Who wants a collection full of cintent like that?  If you're wrong %3 of the time, so what, if a tighter collection draws more overall as a user experience.

would agree IF these reviewers actually knew WHICH would sell and which wouldnt - but they DON'T so it makes things worse for buyers and sellers by restricting the market.  once again, the solution isnt fewer acceptances, but better search methods  - categories, eg, are a waste off time - who can sort thru the milliton images under 'nature' or 'architecture'?

until then, the best strategy is to submit large numbers of quality pictures and ignore any subjective rejections


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
11675 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 16:07
by lisafx
12 Replies
5940 Views
Last post August 30, 2012, 20:48
by daveh900
2 Replies
2448 Views
Last post March 09, 2016, 22:53
by Jo Ann Snover
0 Replies
3701 Views
Last post May 21, 2018, 00:05
by rinderart
38 Replies
14259 Views
Last post June 03, 2019, 22:35
by leremy

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle