Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24776 times)

Ron · « **Reply #75 on:** January 26, 2014, 19:19 »

Reality is January BME. I'll have that fly over my head any day.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #76 on:** January 27, 2014, 12:13 »

It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms

gbalex · « **Reply #77 on:** January 27, 2014, 17:10 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 27, 2014, 12:13

It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms

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.

Once SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content; merit has little value in the search and that is not good for any of us.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #78 on:** January 27, 2014, 17:13 »

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

SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content

low cost content? what are your sources? looking forward to see the real data

Pauws99 · « **Reply #79 on:** January 27, 2014, 17:18 »

I'm confused - so buyers are forced to buy images they don't want? $:-\$

Pauws99 · « **Reply #80 on:** January 27, 2014, 17:21 »

Or alternatively fresh newer images have a chance against older images that have been overexposed

Ron · « **Reply #81 on:** January 27, 2014, 17:40 »

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

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 27, 2014, 12:13
It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms
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.

Once SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content; merit has little value in the search and that is not good for any of us.

Bollocks, you make that up. There are plenty of 38 cent contribs still hitting BME.

JPSDK · « **Reply #82 on:** January 27, 2014, 17:43 »

ja, I think so. We have never heard of that. Thats an istock stunt.

Red Dove · « **Reply #83 on:** January 27, 2014, 18:26 »

Those who are doing well rarely present counter arguments in the forums for four reasons I can think of straight away:

1. Too busy working on their port/business and can't be bothered
2. Knowing they will be ridiculed by others who apparently know better
3. They have no anonymity in the forums and are fed up with seeing their work plagiarized
4. Prefer to trust to their own experience and metrics in the absence of verifiable hardcore data

G'night.

(Added in the cold light of day) I fully appreciate the irony of not having any data to back these points up

gbalex · « **Reply #84 on:** January 28, 2014, 10:50 »

Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.

Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.

Rinderart · « **Reply #85 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:30 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 10:50

Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.

Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.

+ one Million. My port did NOT go cold on it's own.

ShadySue · « **Reply #86 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:34 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 10:50

Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.

Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.

Sounds like what happened at the previous msg fave site.
Those who were doing well there tended to disparage those who were seeing falling sales, blaming it all on their quantity and/or quality. Funny how most of them seem to have totally disappeared.

Ron · « **Reply #87 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.

grey1 · « **Reply #88 on:** January 28, 2014, 14:13 »

I think you are right. Many people keep uploading the same old concepts but in other variations. Now if you take life-styles as an example. Stereotyped models, golden handshakes, business people talking in phones and so on. Not to speak of isolations.
Its an overkill. Yet agencies keep accepting them all over the place. The quantity factor is in fact destroying quality as well as any special work.
SS unfortunately are masters of filling up with identical and similar content, of course being mainly a subscription site.
I am down myself about 30% every single month but its well made up by Rights-managed material.
Micro is somewhat getting out of hand and in a couple of years time...... who knows.

cthoman · « **Reply #89 on:** January 28, 2014, 14:28 »

Well, you can use me as a control group. I haven't uploaded anything since 2010, and my earnings are down around 50%. I expected some drop, but I've been surprised that it continues to drop. I was also disappointed in a lack of growth in the last year (2010) that I did upload too. It's been a trend for me.

Ron · « **Reply #90 on:** January 28, 2014, 15:19 »

4 years is a long time imo

gbalex · « **Reply #91 on:** January 28, 2014, 17:48 »

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.

Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce you make generalizations about what we produce. Most of your remarks are made up out of thin air or at the very least representative of a few ports you have visited.

I guess if you repeat your fabricated misinformation enough times, you think you can convince people your comments are true. There are plenty of contributors on top of current 2014 trends that are seeing huge drops.

Again you are doing a fine job of promoting SS and presenting it in the most positive of light.

gbalex · « **Reply #92 on:** January 28, 2014, 17:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2014, 13:34

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 10:50
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.

Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.

Sounds like what happened at the previous msg fave site.
Those who were doing well there tended to disparage those who were seeing falling sales, blaming it all on their quantity and/or quality. Funny how most of them seem to have totally disappeared.

Unfortunately that did come to mind, we always think that hard work and research will protect us.

Ron · « **Reply #93 on:** January 28, 2014, 17:54 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 17:48

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.

Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce ...

LOL, I never said you were dumping SS, I wished you luck pulling your port, since you are so unhappy with them. And two, its a fact, about the images I referred to.

Master of misinformaton... lol. Hows the tinfoil hat fitting?

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #94 on:** January 28, 2014, 18:50 »

Ron you might want to try that tinfoil hat on, the market is not growing at the same rate as new files coming online. Simple maths, long term you're f&^^ed, we all are.

Eventually SS will suck everyone into the subs grinder with everyone uploading the same work over and over again, digging, diluting and panicking. All SS care about is taking down Getty, if contributors are collateral damage so be it.

The microstock model for contributors was flawed from the beginning, we just didn't see it because we were all to busy undercutting the macro guys and slapping ourselves on the back.

ShadySue · « **Reply #95 on:** January 28, 2014, 18:53 »

When you've dated all the other fish in the sea and found them wanting, you'd better really love the one you're left with.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #96 on:** January 28, 2014, 19:39 »

Quote from: Ron on January 28, 2014, 17:54

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 17:48
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.

Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce ...
LOL, I never said you were dumping SS, I wished you luck pulling your port, since you are so unhappy with them. And two, its a fact, about the images I referred to.

Master of misinformaton... lol. Hows the tinfoil hat fitting?

this guy is a total joke, looking forward to see his source regarding the low cost content having better search placement

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

SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content

gbalex · « **Reply #97 on:** January 29, 2014, 12:19 »

I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you who always seem to be in a row with one person or another. Better to rise above than to entertain those who enjoy conflict.

As for the search: It is simplistic to think in an either or scenario in regard to cost of files. The search is not one dimensional it changes over time. It looks to be based on Hierarchies: Tiers of attributes, such as year > month > date, or Continent > Country > City, e.g. your “country” would be “Europe.Spain”, and your “city” field would be “Europe.Spain.Madrid” — so there’d be no mixing of Madrid, Alabama in your results when filtering or faceting by city.

Some more complex units of measurement might be the total number of dollars spent after a user performed a given search or the age of individual files or contributor accounts – search changes are constant and look to be spanning the age of the entire image database data set so their search serves ever changing multidimensional data sets from the image database based on what type of return per download they are seeking at any given moment.

With the goal of returning higher Return Per Download to stockholders it is not surprising to see the dataset mix change or evolve to a higher percentage of low cost files being added to the most popular search. Hence the drops some of us are seeing.

Ron · « **Reply #98 on:** January 29, 2014, 13:05 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 29, 2014, 12:19

I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:21

Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken.

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 17:48

Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation.

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 13:03

You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS.

Quote from: gbalex on January 26, 2014, 18:45

Until then reality will continue to fly right over your head.

Found in this thread only.

gbalex · « **Reply #99 on:** January 29, 2014, 13:18 »

Quote from: Ron on January 29, 2014, 13:05

Quote from: gbalex on January 29, 2014, 12:19
I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:21

Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken.

Quote from: gbalex on January 28, 2014, 17:48

Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation.

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 13:03

You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS.

Quote from: gbalex on January 26, 2014, 18:45
Until then reality will continue to fly right over your head.

Found in this thread only.

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!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24776 times)

Ron

Pauws99

gbalex

luissantos84

Pauws99

Pauws99

Ron

JPSDK

Red Dove

gbalex

Rinderart

ShadySue

Ron

grey1

cthoman

Ron

gbalex

gbalex

Ron

stock-will-eat-itself

ShadySue

luissantos84

gbalex

Ron

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors