Author Topic: Closed to new contributors (Read 14841 times)

heywoody · « **Reply #25 on:** July 30, 2011, 15:44 »

As a purveyor of the oddball who does this just for fun, I'm astonished sometimes at the stuff that sells often after quite a specific search. A lot of these are sales which the site wouldn't make otherwise as alternative images just ain't there. I don't think pros who depend on stock for a living or even extras could afford to do this

Quote from: disorderly on July 30, 2011, 11:27

.....And maybe I'm uniquely stubborn, but I've never understood why someone would remove their portfolio from a site that's just paid out. ...

Ditto.. You might stop contributing but deleting stuff already in and earning would be nuts

lthn · « **Reply #26 on:** July 30, 2011, 16:25 »

Quote from: Ed on July 29, 2011, 13:40

Something I've been wondering about for a while....a hypothetical question....

How would you feel if one of the top tier sites (Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia) made the following business decisions effective January 1, 2012:

1) Close to new contributors
2) Purge all contributor accounts with an image portfolio of less than 5,000 images as of 1/1/2012
3) Change contribution standards to be stricter (similar to what Shutterstock is currently doing or what iStock does)

What would you do? What is your perception of what customers would do?

1. nonsense
2. nonsense
3. Which standards?

Mantis · « **Reply #27 on:** July 30, 2011, 19:07 »

Quote from: mantonino on July 30, 2011, 10:57

These suggestions/ideas make me think you don't understand the economics of microstock. Shutterstock would be far better off getting rid of everyone who's made $500 or more and keeping all the new photographers who just started. They don't because quality of the gallery would suffer but they make a lot more money on a new photographers sales then they do mine or someone else who's crossed $10k.

Really? Why? Let's say for sake of argument that SS sells 100,000 images per month at $1.00 each ($100,000 in revenue). Part of this success is the simple fact that those contributors who are $10k + submitters provide good images that the buyers want. Some come from new submitters. How is eliminating these $10k plus submitters going to change a thing if the bulk of sales come from them? Regardless of .36 cents vs. .38 cents? It just goes to show you that new contributors, in general, don't submit enough volume and quality to warrant weeding out $10k plus contributors. The issue is quality, quantity and consistency, which regulars seem to keep giving. It provides a form of reassurance to SS that they can keep buyers buying 100k images per month. But let's get real here. The actual "real value" of SS is for images downloads to not happen so that they keep more of the package price. A few cents here and there in payouts is nothing when compared to someone who buys a $200 package and buys 1 photo.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #28 on:** July 31, 2011, 04:35 »

The best possible scenario for the agencies is to have a million artists none of whom every quite gets to the payout. That way, someone else does all the work and they keep all the money.

That situation already exists in a less extreme form. There are tens of thousands of artists with a handful of sales or who are struggling to get to the payout threshold.

If you see an agency put up its minimum payout threshold it means that they are moving the target into a steeper part of the bell curve and a small increase in the threshold could mean a massive increase in available operating cash.

mantonino · « **Reply #29 on:** July 31, 2011, 09:14 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 30, 2011, 19:07

Quote from: mantonino on July 30, 2011, 10:57
They don't because quality of the gallery would suffer
Part of this success is the simple fact that those contributors who are $10k + submitters provide good images that the buyers want.

You're agreeing with me and saying no. LOL I don't know how to refute that.

I'm saying if two images sell and one's from a guy who started today and one is from me, mine cost Shutterstock 56% more to pay out. The fact that buyers tend to buy my images over the other is what I meant by the gallery would suffer if they removed the $10k people.

qwerty · « **Reply #30 on:** August 01, 2011, 02:27 »

if you want to weed out people just make the amount they can submit related to their approval ratio. If they're submitting cr*p cut their limit down and you;ll save "reviewing" costs and if they're not serious they'll drop out.

I don't think they would chuck out poeple without 5000 images, I know that is some number you pulled out of the air but it would include probably only the top few % of contributors.

If contributor numbers were a problem you could make it to join you need 100 images which would make sure that people are serious about putting effort in.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Closed to new contributors (Read 14841 times)

heywoody

lthn

Mantis

BaldricksTrousers

mantonino

qwerty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors