Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24907 times)

JPSDK · « **Reply #125 on:** January 30, 2014, 01:17 »

come on guys!

Copidosoma · « **Reply #126 on:** January 30, 2014, 11:22 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 30, 2014, 01:17

come on guys!

Seriously, it is like watching 8 year olds in the schoolyard. $:-\$

Red Dove · « **Reply #127 on:** January 30, 2014, 17:59 »

I vote we bring duelling back.

Mantis · « **Reply #128 on:** January 30, 2014, 22:42 »

Back to the OPs question. Yes they know. Most agencies are very attune to what it costs in terms of talent, skills, cost, etc. they know * well. They real question should be do they care? All I can say is that profits trump caring, at least in microstock. But knowing this we still feed the beast, so we have some accountability.

robhainer · « **Reply #129 on:** January 30, 2014, 22:52 »

So, gbalex, you're theory is that it's not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search? In other words, an image gets buried if it pays 38 cents? I just want clarification on that point.

Also, would you link your port on Shutterstock? It's difficult to have a discussion without some context.

shudderstok · « **Reply #130 on:** January 31, 2014, 00:13 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on January 30, 2014, 11:22

Quote from: JPSDK on January 30, 2014, 01:17
come on guys!

Seriously, it is like watching 8 year olds in the schoolyard. $:-\$

welcome to Microstockgroup the forum for "professional" microstock photographers. i thing you might be a bit forgiving in your demographic, it's more like 5 year old's in the schoolyard/sandbox.

gbalex · « **Reply #131 on:** January 31, 2014, 01:24 »

Quote from: robhainer on January 30, 2014, 22:52

So, gbalex, you're theory is that it's not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search? In other words, an image gets buried if it pays 38 cents? I just want clarification on that point.

Do you Shutterstock cheerleaders ever read or do you just make things up to prove your false shot gun assumptions. Lets be clear I DO NOT and never did have a theory that it is not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search?

The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.

Quote from: gbalex 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 stirred 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.

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

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 dataset 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 #132 on:** January 31, 2014, 05:21 »

A submitter from 2005 posted yesterday he made 500 dollar in two days making Jan 2014 almost BME.

Another submitter from 2007 reported BME

Two submitters from 2010 (38c level) Reported BME.

And more...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #133 on:** January 31, 2014, 06:32 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 31, 2014, 01:24

The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.

how do you know that files selling "now" are low cost? do you contact the photographers? if the low cost files are the new trend why don't you do some of those instead of bitching around all the time

Ron · « **Reply #134 on:** January 31, 2014, 07:25 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 31, 2014, 06:32

Quote from: gbalex on January 31, 2014, 01:24
The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.

how do you know that files selling "now" are low cost? do you contact the photographers? if the low cost files are the new trend why don't you do some of those instead of bitching around all the time

He means low cost to SS. SS is pushing 25 cent images in front of 38 cent images to increase the Revenue per download for SS. They need to do this for the shareholders and thats why long time contributors see a drop in sales.

Plus SS has said numerous times they arent increasing the pricing of the images to gain market share. So thats why we wont see a raise.

The only thing he can prove is that SS wont increase the pricing of the images, the other theory that 25 cent images are pushed up is just that, a theory.

Disclaimer: all of that is not my opinion, but what I understand from Gbalex' comments.

robhainer · « **Reply #135 on:** January 31, 2014, 07:40 »

It's a theory that doesn't hold water because he knows I can prove otherwise, so now he hedges his theory with ''increasesd percentage''. So now, in order for his theory to be true, we must accept that Shutterstock is picking some 38 cent contributors over other 38 cent contributors.

We're not going to see a raise because there's no other site out there that pays most contributors as much as Shutterstock does. The real value of our assets is what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. And Shutterstock's customers pay me 10 times more for my assets than any other site.

Red Dove · « **Reply #136 on:** January 31, 2014, 08:57 »

Quote from: Red Dove on January 30, 2014, 17:59

I vote we bring duelling back.

I take it back. The protagonists would probably spend an hour shrilly arguing over some finer point of duelling etiquette - and end up being shot by their own seconds.

JPSDK · « **Reply #137 on:** January 31, 2014, 09:24 »

Increased profit per download can easily come from Ods and singles. They for sure have increased my RPD.
win- win

gbalex · « **Reply #138 on:** January 31, 2014, 10:38 »

Quote from: robhainer on January 31, 2014, 07:40

It's a theory that doesn't hold water because he knows I can prove otherwise, so now he hedges his theory with ''increasesd percentage''. So now, in order for his theory to be true, we must accept that Shutterstock is picking some 38 cent contributors over other 38 cent contributors.

We're not going to see a raise because there's no other site out there that pays most contributors as much as Shutterstock does. The real value of our assets is what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. And Shutterstock's customers pay me 10 times more for my assets than any other site.

The only thing you have proven is that you either can not read or choose not to.

If you will notice I quoted two instances of posts that I made long before YOU made up your theory and attributed it to me.

I am done entertaining this group of Shutterstock cheerleaders who behave like a gang of hyenas. I have had more than a few private messages from folks who can and do actual read and agree with me. They choose not to subject themselves to these types of defamatory personal attacks.

robhainer · « **Reply #139 on:** January 31, 2014, 13:09 »

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be to you in a way that is totally unrelated to the forum. Nobody has done that. You're playing the victim without cause.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24907 times)

JPSDK

Copidosoma

Red Dove

Mantis

robhainer

shudderstok

gbalex

Ron

luissantos84

Ron

robhainer

Red Dove

JPSDK

gbalex

robhainer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors