MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: absolute despair  (Read 25217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2011, 18:10 »
0
Like I said, you miss a couple of sales, you're not really missing or restricting much.


« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2011, 23:41 »
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.
+1
I guess that the only think that really matters in this business (beside being a technically good image) is that your image should help somebody sell a product, if you can go with that you will have sales but maybe I am wrong.
This should anser stockastic' questions too...

« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2011, 02:31 »
0
This morning I have 4 images less in my portfolio... :'(
 4 images were approved in my last batch few days ago, but now they are rejected because LCV...
I haven't received any notification mail about that...

traveler1116

« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2011, 03:32 »
0
This morning I have 4 images less in my portfolio... :'(
 4 images were approved in my last batch few days ago, but now they are rejected because LCV...
I haven't received any notification mail about that...

They are taking out already accepted images because of LCV? 

« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2011, 03:53 »
0
There's always alamy.  They make lots of money from allegedly LCV stuff.

I find it funny that SS have been selling a lot of EL's lately and several of mine would be considered LCV now.  Reviewers obviously don't know what will sell, neither do we.  The search deals with the LCV stuff and I wouldn't mind if they deleted images that don't sell after a few years.  It's not just SS, all of the big sites have strange rejections, sometimes for images that make hundreds of dollars on other sites.  I suppose they lose more money than we do but it can get annoying.  There's a huge variation in standards and some reviewers accept almost everything while others are extremely strict.

There isn't anything we can do to change this though, they know what we think about this and its up to them.  It gives some of the smaller sites that have less stringent reviews a boost.

michealo

« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2011, 05:52 »
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.   

If you have no technical issues why not accept that you do have creative issues ie you are trying to be creative when that isn't what is required.

You are way to emotionally invested in your photos and in your dealings with the sites.

Looking right on average site number 2 is IS yet you quit dealing with them.

Start supplying high volume "baked beans" to the supermarket chains and stop complaining that they won't stock your low volume "gourmet sauce"

Start acting like a business person and stop behaving like an artiste

Microbius

« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2011, 06:16 »
0
^^ that's pretty much spot on.
Sorry but these sites are very much the Walmart/ Asda side of the image licensing business. They rely on volume of sales per image.
If you want to supply boutique items you need to a model which allows you to charge boutique prices.
I am a perfectly comfortable with that, if you aren't then maybe you are in the wrong business.

rubyroo

« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2011, 07:29 »
0
Well there's also always a matter of flexibility and diversification.  You don't have cut your creativity completely.  Just supply the appropriate material to the appropriate outlet.

"Horses for courses" an' all that.

« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2011, 07:57 »
0
This morning I have 4 images less in my portfolio... :'(
 4 images were approved in my last batch few days ago, but now they are rejected because LCV...
I haven't received any notification mail about that...

They are taking out already accepted images because of LCV? 
Its seems so! This is first time to me...

helix7

« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2011, 08:06 »
0
There's always alamy.  They make lots of money from allegedly LCV stuff...

It's funny, at SS I make some decent money with stuff that istock would consider LCV. I guess it's all relative. One company's LCV is another's Most Popular.

« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2011, 08:34 »
0
There's always alamy.  They make lots of money from allegedly LCV stuff...

It's funny, at SS I make some decent money with stuff that istock would consider LCV. I guess it's all relative. One company's LCV is another's Most Popular.

This is common for my occasional travel shots. The fact that reviewer has never heard of such a place doesn't necessarily mean that it is not fairly famous in another part of world (maybe two seconds  wikipedia would help) according to sales at other sites.

« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Of course, the funny thing is that there is so much competition between HCV images that unless your "smiling girl with headset" image is outstanding it is likely to have zero commercial value.
Maybe, in the end, competition will reach the point where everything has s0d all commercial value.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2011, 10:00 »
0
Of course, the funny thing is that there is so much competition between HCV images that unless your "smiling girl with headset" image is outstanding it is likely to have zero commercial value.
Maybe, in the end, competition will reach the point where everything has s0d all commercial value.

If you shoot models at least it's a new face that customers might like or even fall in love with. An apple... is an apple... so as time goes on shooting models might just be one of the few things that still make sense. Attractive ones of course, sex appeal triumphs over 'credibility' anyday.

« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2011, 11:10 »
0
don't forget you have to keep up with the headset technology too.

While most of the images bought might be the typical HCV images, if the buyer can't find the other images on the site they will look elsewhere for them. If another site has all of the HCV images they need (pretty much all the sites have these I imagine), then they might just want to stay with the site that ALSO has the quirky LCV images they need every once in a while.  Does it make sense to go out of your way or work hard to make LCV images for microstock? - probably not, especially not if they get rejected, but if you live near a minor landmark and can get a pic of it while out walking the dog or whatever, then the return might compensate the effort - or maybe it would make more sense to send it to Alamy where you might get more for the one off sale.

I do think that making the search engines work well is more important that rejecting LCV images for the sites - unfortunately that doesn't appear to be how they see it.

« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2011, 11:46 »
0
I suspect the big reason for the increase in LCV rejections is that it reduces reviewing costs.  

If you reject for LCV right at the top, you don't spend time (money) looking at noise, isolation, sharpness at 100%, or keywords.

RacePhoto

« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2011, 14:12 »
0
I suspect the big reason for the increase in LCV rejections is that it reduces reviewing costs.  

If you reject for LCV right at the top, you don't spend time (money) looking at noise, isolation, sharpness at 100%, or keywords.




You may be right, but the agencies do whatever they please. Our opinions and protests have no voice.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 09:45 by RacePhoto »

antistock

« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2011, 23:10 »
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.

Absolutely disagree.
There's plenty of wonderful evocative, creative, and obscure subjects on sale on RM agencies, the issue lies in your cheap-ass clients eventually who don't want to spend more than a handful of dollars... and i mean there's good RF stuff for as low as 50 bucks, we're not talking about needing huge budgets.

So Please don't blame us photographers, it's the micros that reject anything a bit out of the ordinary for silly reasons.


antistock

« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2011, 23:19 »
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>

unique content only works in certain agencies, for instance paparazzi, news, gossip, celebrities.
but for micro ? hmmm ......

and for RM as well... yeah you can be lucky sometimes but it's more common that your unique amazing shots will make no sales in 5 years and being later dumped in some minor collection like Getty is doing now with Thinkstock and the low-earners.

in my opinion unique content is good for assignments, not for stock.

antistock

« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2011, 23:38 »
0
There's always alamy.  They make lots of money from allegedly LCV stuff.

yes they do and they pay you well but it's completely unpredictable.
your best bet on Alamy is throwing your whole portfolio at the wall, wait a couple years, and see what sticks.

« Reply #44 on: October 31, 2011, 14:48 »
0
My original rant was about SS and DT rejecting some of my recent shots for LCV and 'similar'.   

One of them just sold on GL.   I feel somewhat vindicated but also greatly annoyed because I know if it makes even one sale on GL  it would do well on DT.

« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2011, 14:59 »
0
My original rant was about SS and DT rejecting some of my recent shots for LCV and 'similar'.   

One of them just sold on GL.   I feel somewhat vindicated but also greatly annoyed because I know if it makes even one sale on GL  it would do well on DT.

Frankly, in the stock business you just have to get over feelings like that and adopt a "que sera sera" attitude. Just go and make an even better shot and see how that flies - maybe it will get on DT.

« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2011, 15:35 »
0
Frankly, in the stock business you just have to get over feelings like that and adopt a "que sera sera" attitude. Just go and make an even better shot and see how that flies - maybe it will get on DT.

That used to work, but it doesn't anymore.  I dropped IS, thought DT and SS might still be enough to make it worthwhile doing the occassional few images.  But now they've started rejecting too many,  and I'd be wasting too much time on shots  that never get approved and  I wouldn't make it up on the ones that do get in.  The combination of lower prices and higher rejections is a vice that eventually gets too tight.  

Just speaking for myself, here, and the type of things I do.  If it still works for you, great.  My despair is not absolute, I remain hopeful that things will change, somehow.

 
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 16:39 by stockastic »

Microbius

« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2011, 05:01 »
0
......My despair is not absolute, I remain hopeful that things will change, somehow.


You should change the thread title then, it's very misleading  ;D

rubyroo

« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2011, 06:09 »
0
... and depressing!  Every time I see this thread title, my insides sink  :(

Glad to know you're still hopeful Stockastic.  That's the ticket ol' fruit  ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: November 01, 2011, 09:39 »
0
... and depressing!  Every time I see this thread title, my insides sink  :(

Glad to know you're still hopeful Stockastic.  That's the ticket ol' fruit  ;D


K sara, K sara... LOL Whatever will be, will be, I just don't get excited much anymore.

I think some people need to mellow out a little and let the images float. Relax, and stop trying to create business where the growth has leveled off. Take what you can get, it's not the jet takeoff like it was a few years ago. There's money and some growth, but the train is full and there's not much more room for more material.

I have some new ideas and for all I know the results will be, "too many like this, they don't sell well." And I'll be put off again. I do keep a fair balance between trying to shoot "stock" and shooting things I enjoy which go to Alamy. The two are so different, it's nice to have the options for, hey pretty shot, but it's not selling something, or doesn't have a clear message. Yeah Baby, it does for me. It's going up on Alamy for the masses and maybe someone will like it?



Take That Pal.  :D


 

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