Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24808 times)

Ron · « **Reply #100 on:** January 29, 2014, 13:40 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 29, 2014, 13:18

Not at all surprising you left out your side of the conversations Ron. The common theme in all your conflicts is that you feel you are an attacked victim. You seem incapable of understanding or seeing how your own actions affect your interactions with others.

Time for me to step back and take my own inventory!

No, it was already established I am childish, I just wanted to show you, you arent any different. You are calling the kettle black.

On a serious note, what are you trying to achieve by posting all your findings on MSG? Why dont you take it up with Shutterstock directly? Why arent you posting on the Shutterstock forum? Why only here? It makes more sense to post it where the Shutterstock contributors can read it. Half of them dont come here.

You can easily open a second account just to post in the SS forum anonymously.

Just my two cents.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #101 on:** January 29, 2014, 13:48 »

very well said Ron!

Rinderart · « **Reply #102 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:04 »

I wish someone said I was childish. That would be a compliment at my age...LOL

Rinderart · « **Reply #103 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:09 »

Quote from: Ron on January 28, 2014, 13:43

I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.

In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.

Fact?? whos Fact? yours.. Ron..It works for me. Everytime I sell a color version, The B&W also sells at least 90% of the time because of SUBs and "The same model" Tab., Other sites Not so.. My Volume is down and it's not from doing Black to white backgrounds and vise verse.I specifically shoot knowing Im gonna convert most of the time because "MY" stats and or any success over the years I've had, skew that way and It could mean I do presentable B&W Images and Plan for it at the time of exposure and Lighting. And..My B&W far outsell my color versions in every outlet from stock to print, Always have and just about every student I've ever taught, the first thing They ask is to show them My workflow doing it.. My port reflects what I like and what I submit takes me away from the mostly boring stuff I do photographically that pays the bills and buys the best equipment. If I relied on stock to satisfy Being creative or financially solvent. I'd be living in a alley and I knew that 9 years ago.

It's not, by far for everyone, But I enjoy it and Gimmie a crack faced 90 Year old Man or Woman anytime...LOL why? Again because I enjoy shooting them and since not to many others do. It works for me and my Niche. A downward trend in sales for some I don't think is related as there are folks submitting that are first class shooters and VERY first class commercial stock shooters that you have never heard of because they don't post. Also..Besides, What I consider A bad Numbers month for me, Might be a Huge BME for someone else. It's all relative.

Before the search Change or whatever . it was mid March 2013, Every month was a Best ever, The majority saw growth and motivation was high.. Now, every month is a worst ever or close to it On All The sites im with. Is it because I change Backgrounds? submit B&W also? I don't think so and gotta call crap. Im doing what has worked for me for 9 years and now it doesn't, If what I do Had "never" worked I wouldn't be here, Simple as that.Enjoy what it is ,while it lasts.

Ron · « **Reply #104 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:17 »

grey1 · « **Reply #105 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:23 »

You do have some points there Laurin. I think maybe one must have been involved in Microstock for say five, six years in order to really notice the difference in earnings and so on. many who has only been at it for a couple of years have nothing to compare with.

Ron · « **Reply #106 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:26 »

My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white, submitting also a color version on black. Its still the same image. Its just bloating a portfolio. Quantity over quality.

I dont have those stats, agree, because I dont feel the need to bloat my portfolio just yet.

farbled · « **Reply #107 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:30 »

Quote from: Ron on January 29, 2014, 14:26

My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white, submitting also a color version on black. Its still the same image. Its just bloating a portfolio. Quantity over quality.

I dont have those stats, agree, because I dont feel the need to bloat my portfolio just yet.

Actually, your words were "I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales."

Ron · « **Reply #108 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:31 »

I know, I wrote them myself.

farbled · « **Reply #109 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:37 »

And you don't see a contradiction?

Red Dove · « **Reply #110 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:51 »

In summary: The agencies don't know the value of images and neither do the image makers.

Ron · « **Reply #111 on:** January 29, 2014, 14:53 »

Quote from: farbled on January 29, 2014, 14:37

And you don't see a contradiction?

No, did I say I didnt write that? I just clarified the point I tried to make. How is that contradicting.

farbled · « **Reply #112 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:01 »

Quote from: Ron on January 29, 2014, 14:53

Quote from: farbled on January 29, 2014, 14:37
And you don't see a contradiction?
No, did I say I didnt write that? I just clarified the point I tried to make. How is that contradicting.

You said after "My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white" when in fact your original statement was about both. Yes, contradictory.

bunhill · « **Reply #113 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:07 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 27, 2014, 17:10

Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.

If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Unless the search is hand picked.

Ron · « **Reply #114 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:09 »

Quote from: farbled on January 29, 2014, 15:01

Quote from: Ron on January 29, 2014, 14:53
Quote from: farbled on January 29, 2014, 14:37
And you don't see a contradiction?
No, did I say I didnt write that? I just clarified the point I tried to make. How is that contradicting.

You said after "My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white" when in fact your original statement was about both. Yes, contradictory.

I know what I wrote, honestly I do, I clarified the point I want to make. Its not contradicting, its clarifying.

farbled · « **Reply #115 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:14 »

I don't care enough to continue. You win. Enjoy.

Ron · « **Reply #116 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:19 »

Quote from: farbled on January 29, 2014, 15:14

I don't care enough to continue. You win. Enjoy.

I win what??? You started the crusade. I am defending myself against you, its not the other way around. Seriously, for me it wasnt even about winning, for you apparently it was.

farbled · « **Reply #117 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:26 »

Quote from: Ron on January 29, 2014, 15:19

Quote from: farbled on January 29, 2014, 15:14
I don't care enough to continue. You win. Enjoy.
Seriously, for me it wasnt even about winning, for you apparently it was.

No, actually it wasn't. But you like to argue in the forums and I generally don't. To you its a clarification, to me its two statements that contradict each other. I won't be able to convince you otherwise. Therefore, no point in continuing.

Ron · « **Reply #118 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:33 »

I am flabbergasted, you started the argument. I explain to you what I meant, and you dont accept my explanation. I am not going to say you are right, when I what I say is what I mean. I am completely lost here.

farbled · « **Reply #119 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:48 »

Quote from: Ron on January 29, 2014, 15:33

I am flabbergasted, you started the argument. I explain to you what I meant, and you dont accept my explanation. I am not going to say you are right, when I what I say is what I mean. I am completely lost here.

You didn't explain. Your argument was "I know what I wrote". Seriously, I was pointing something out that stood out to me. You replied, so did I. We disagree. Enough said.

farbled · « **Reply #120 on:** January 29, 2014, 15:49 »

My own fault for sticking my oar into something that has nothing to do with me. Please someone put this back on topic.

gbalex · « **Reply #121 on:** January 29, 2014, 17:18 »

Quote from: bunhill on January 29, 2014, 15:07

Quote from: gbalex on January 27, 2014, 17:10
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.

If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Unless the search is hand picked.

I agree content should be stired up.

However the micros can easily stir up content without penalizing the very people who helped them build their business. I take issue with the "increased percentage" of low cost files they are serving buyers over proven NEW HCV content that in now being pushed to the back of searches because they have to pay more for that content in contributor royalties.

Take notice the next time a quarterly report comes out, every quarter "Return Per Download" goes up and they proudly display this to stock holders and analyst.

gbalex · « **Reply #122 on:** January 29, 2014, 17:32 »

Thanks for the bounty of negative votes Luissantos84 and Ron

I trust I can count on many from you in the future.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #123 on:** January 29, 2014, 21:00 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 29, 2014, 17:32

Thanks for the bounty of negative votes Luissantos84 and Ron I trust I can count on many from you in the future.

my pleasure! ah you can always explain how low cost content has better search placement, or maybe don't, that is fine!

gbalex · « **Reply #124 on:** January 30, 2014, 01:03 »

Clearly you do not read my reply's or you would know I did put your request into my originally intended and not twisted context a page back.

It is a waste of time entertaining any of your questions because you both make up facts to fit the business scenario you wish and hope will play out long term. I would have thought many here would have learned from both Fotolia's and IS's treatment. It is time to let the sites know we are not happy with their treatment of our assets. It never helps any of us by ignoring the reality of the situation because we wish things were different.

It has become clear that it does not matter how many of us tell you that our sales have dropped drastically since March and that our new images are not showing up in searches. You have chosen to believe your own truth despite the facts offered.

As an example, I have posted the below snip directly out of Jon and key managements mouths and the comments have gone unread. Despite posting the snip multiple times in various threads on this forum; Ron still makes up his own facts in defiance of clear evidence that his comment is not factual.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/s-j-locke-uploading-to-shutterstock/msg362228/#msg362228

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 18:58

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 16:46
Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 16:41
Quote from: Travelling-light on January 22, 2014, 15:52
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.

Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.

Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.
Where have they gone then? Why blame SS for poor sales over at IS. According to Bunhill IS is cheaper then SS.

Straight from the SS founders mouth "If you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. "

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24808 times)

Ron

luissantos84

Rinderart

Rinderart

Ron

grey1

Ron

farbled

Ron

farbled

Red Dove

Ron

farbled

bunhill

Ron

farbled

Ron

farbled

Ron

farbled

farbled

gbalex

gbalex

luissantos84

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors