MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DT and FT - What are they thinking???  (Read 24354 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2012, 22:17 »
0
Quote
This is a fairly narrow view of how buyers are using microstock.  In fact, I'd say any company or agency turning to microstock for branding is foolish, for exactly the reasons you point out.  Even if you bought a new image and used it to brand your company or client, that image could soon be bought by hundreds or thousands of others.  Truly professional agencies and clients instead turn to RM or shoot their own stuff for all the reasons you describe.

The people buying my stuff are not big companies using it for branding.  They're small businesses, consultants, bloggers, publishers, etc., using my images to help them make important points, to give them an extra punch.    They appear in sales presentations, brochures, web and print articles, etc.    I believe this is the type of use that makes up the bulk of microstock usage for all of us.  And I'll make the point again... these folks care first about an image with "punch"... something that effectively drives the point home... by and large they're not concerned about whether the image has been used before.

The proof is in my overall sales.  They've been rising steadily everywhere for the past four years, even at DT and FT up until the last few months when they implemented best match changes.   The market was not asking for these changes, at least according to my data.
Quote

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's. I mean... isn't it kinda obvious that he wants attention for his stuff, wants ppl to remember his service offer, not somebody else... duh? :) For the rest: we used to buy RM, and guess what, as micro started to take off, clients directed us there. I didn't even know about istock for years after it existed, untill a marketing manager several years ago (wizz air) started sending over thumbails and links for pictures to use in layouts. You have no idea how frugal even giant companies are. Their corporate trained marketing ppl are told to push everyone to the edge for every penny. If they could charge you for working, they would do it (actually they are doing that more and more...) + as economy collapses and budgets shrink even more.

+1

Finally, someone who speaks with knowledge.


« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2012, 22:53 »
0

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.

Um, no.  I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response.  These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising.  They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging.  Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive.  Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way.  A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few...

Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood.  It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it.  That's institutional/branding advertising.  Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive.  That's direct response/product advertising.  

Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 23:09 by stockmarketer »

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2012, 03:19 »
0

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.

Um, no.  I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response.  These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising.  They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging.  Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive.  Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way.  A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few...

Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood.  It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it.  That's institutional/branding advertising.  Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive.  That's direct response/product advertising.  

Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.

so? Branding works the same there too. It's function is not to give you warm fuzzies, but to make sure you get that it's about chryslers and not toyotas. I worked BTL by the way.

OM

« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2012, 03:46 »
0
I've just checked a couple of searches on DT and my images are appearing high up in them. That doesn't seem to be translating into many sales at the moment but I see no reason to suppose they are hiding my work.

I've no idea what FT is doing.


I think (and it's only my opinion) that FT is 'favouriting' in it's default search. Some contributors' (often serial uploaders) most recent files get priority in the search. Search 'beans' and on p1 you'll see towards the bottom of the page a series of 8 images, all very recent from the same contributor (gold) with virtually no views/downloads but they're on p1 and compose 8 of the 50 images on the first page buyers get to see. From another contributor there are also a number of recent images on that same page.
Perhaps even more interesting are various images from one particular contributor. They also have an image of a single large bean at the bottom of the page although it is difficult to tell what it is at first sight. Many new images of this 'emerald' appear in pole position in any search when you take their keywords and feed them into search separately.

Specific example: http://en.fotolia.com/id/42313501
Keywords: by, cease, cigarette, defec,t doubt, electronics, girl, girls, people, person, smoke, smoker, technology, tobacco, woman, women

Take some of those keywords one by one and search..........bingo!.. cease: image on p1! smoker: image on p1! electronics: image on p1
tobacco: image on p1. Doesn't work for all the keywords like women or girl but perhaps they weren't in the 'all important' first six keywords that FT tells contributors to prioritise. The funny thing about that shot also is that it has no English title, only what appear to be Chinese/Japanese characters and Cyrillic script. An interesting port to peruse, that's for sure. Recent images from that port crop up with amazing regularity when the search is fed with their keywords (even when wrongly  keyworded). Try 'tortilla' and you'll see a glaring, obviously mis-keyworded, green slab of quiche on p1. Yep, same character and the green slab + one of the series turns up within the first 2 pages of search of most of the keywords.

Now either it's some sophisticated hack that FT hasn't discovered or contributor has a direct line to the top of almost every search. This example, combined with the massive over-exposure of some contributors on the first pages of search make me wonder if there isn't some sort of exclusive club in operation here. Still you can lead the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. Poor shots will not be bought and will gradually disappear from the first search pages but it does seem that some contributors there are getting a disproportionate opportunity to get their stuff in front of buyers compared to others.
 

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2012, 04:23 »
0

Now either it's some sophisticated hack that FT hasn't discovered or contributor has a direct line to the top of almost every search. This example, combined with the massive over-exposure of some contributors on the first pages of search make me wonder if there isn't some sort of exclusive club in operation here. Still you can lead the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. Poor shots will not be bought and will gradually disappear from the first search pages but it does seem that some contributors there are getting a disproportionate opportunity to get their stuff in front of buyers compared to others.
 

I think that happens all the time, on most agencies. The owners and operators of these sites are the kind of persons who's preffered business model is to rip ppl off whenever possible, and they found a nice low maintenance cash cow model for with an easy-to-victimize crowd of mostly impotent whiners. Favoritism and similar things are trivial to these kind of businesses. That's why it's important to be anonymous if you need to express criticism, I don't think they will hesitate to make your port sink or lock you out if they have a grudge. I humiliated istock's village idiot on their forums because I just couldn't watch him needlessly picking on some timid contributor. I got banned from mail and forums (forever) got an email with 'personal messages', and my port abruptly started getting almost no dls.

wut

« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2012, 04:26 »
0
The level system used to be the best thing about DT

I'd say 50% flat rate for every file was the best thing about DT. None of this sheat would be going on if it was still in place, we'd be getting more, because of royalty percentage alone, not to mention a lot higher volume. Buyers wouldn't be confused with the levels either.

grafix04

« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2012, 05:37 »
0
I got banned from mail and forums (forever) got an email with 'personal messages', and my port abruptly started getting almost no dls.

Noooooo!  With your charisma and charm?  I find that difficult to believe.

I'd say 50% flat rate for every file was the best thing about DT. None of this sheat would be going on if it was still in place, we'd be getting more, because of royalty percentage alone, not to mention a lot higher volume. Buyers wouldn't be confused with the levels either.

Agreed.  Yet another reason why buyers are likely to leave.

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2012, 11:50 »
0
On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)?  If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?

I keep reading this, but it isn't borne out by my sales.  First off, since they began dropping images that haven't sold in 6 months to one credit, most emeralds, etc. probably have thousands of 1 credit images.  I know I do.  

If the argument that customers are simply buying cheaper images is true, then I should be seeing a high proportion of my sales going to 1 credit files.  I'm not.  Vast majority of my sales are still on 2 credit images, both new and old.

Whatever the magic formula is at FT, it doesn't seem to be especially dependent on image price.   
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:02 by lisafx »

« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2012, 11:54 »
0
On FT, is it not the case that higher ranks can set higher prices (the punter pays more as well as / instead of just a higher cut for the contributor)?  If so, is it not just possible that buyers are simply taking cost into account thus favouring the small timer?

I keep reading this, but it isn't borne out by my sales.  First off, since they began dropping images that haven't sold in 6 months (including seasonal ones) to 1 credit - and leaving them there even after they sell - , most emeralds, etc. probably have thousands of 1 credit images.  I know I do. 

If the argument that customers are simply buying cheaper images is true, then I should be seeing a high proportion of my sales going to 1 credit files.  I'm not.  Vast majority of my sales are still on 2 credit images, both new and old. 

In FT's case, the anecdotal evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that the best match is favoring based on contributor rank, NOT image price.  Wish it wasn't so, but there you are.
That is exactly what I am seeing as well. My sales actually went up instead of down when I originally put them from 1 credit to 2 and at the moment I am selling new images and 2 credit images.

« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2012, 12:05 »
0
I have just been and looked for one of my highest selling images using it's most relevant keyword.  It usually sold several times a day at FT and has about 2000 dls but I've just realized that I haven't seen it sell for ages.   On the dl search it comes in on the second page (20 a page),  but the relevant search where it used to be one of the first images I now can't even find it after going through about 10 pages.

« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2012, 12:39 »
0

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's.

Um, no.  I've worked in advertising for many years, and regularly discuss with clients whether a given campaign will be branding or direct response.  These are the two primarily types of advertising -- institutional/branding and direct response/product advertising.  They really are distinctly different, with different primary objectives and different tones and messaging.  Branding ads aim to give you warm fuzzies about the company and keep them top of mind, or associate them with something positive.  Direct response or product advertising focuses on a specific product and wants you to take action in a specific way.  A simple Google search on the topic could help clear this up further and give you some good examples of both types, but I'll offer a few...

Think of the Chrysler ad during the Superbowl starring Clint Eastwood.  It barely featured the products, instead focusing on concepts and values Chrysler wanted you to associate with it.  That's institutional/branding advertising.  Then think of local ads for the Chrysler dealership in your town yelling about a cheap lease price on a new Chrysler 200 and urging you to come in for a test drive.  That's direct response/product advertising.  

Of course, these are black and white examples, and sometimes ads will be grey... trying to cover all the bases (perhaps like your local plumber -- though I'd argue that if he's urging you to call him to fix a leaky sink that's call to action rather than branding)... but people in advertising can typically spot the differences a mile away.

Anything a company puts in front of your mug represents and conveys their corporate brand persona. Period.

Research, strategy and execution determines tactics. Apple may create a "Think Different" image campaign to refocus their brand. Volkswagon created the "Lemon" campaign to draw unique and memorable self-deprecating humor. These are corporate image ads that define a company's brand.

Direct response ads contain a specific call-to-action to buy something or go somewhere to learn more. They are NOT (or should not be) void of a company's corporate branding standards or overall messaging platform. They should (and will) communicate a company's brand personality and implement their branding strategy.

Some ad's purpose in life will lean more or less toward pithy, metaphoric concepts while others try harder to get the purchasing process started. Regardless of the execution and intent, a brand identity is conveyed to the viewer. 

« Reply #36 on: June 16, 2012, 13:10 »
0
Wizz Air is a low cost company with very very low quality, so it's obvious they don't want to pay for anything. 

[/quote]

You don't seem to understand (and I don't understand why this is so hard) that any kind of advertising is branding, even your local plumber's. I mean... isn't it kinda obvious that he wants attention for his stuff, wants ppl to remember his service offer, not somebody else... duh? :) For the rest: we used to buy RM, and guess what, as micro started to take off, clients directed us there. I didn't even know about istock for years after it existed, untill a marketing manager several years ago (wizz air) started sending over thumbails and links for pictures to use in layouts. You have no idea how frugal even giant companies are. Their corporate trained marketing ppl are told to push everyone to the edge for every penny. If they could charge you for working, they would do it (actually they are doing that more and more...) + as economy collapses and budgets shrink even more.
[/quote]

drugal

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2012, 02:40 »
0

Wizz Air is a low cost company with very very low quality, so it's obvious they don't want to pay for anything. 


now thats just seriously naive...

grafix04

« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2012, 05:37 »
0
Anything a company puts in front of your mug represents and conveys their corporate brand persona. Period.

Research, strategy and execution determines tactics. Apple may create a "Think Different" image campaign to refocus their brand. Volkswagon created the "Lemon" campaign to draw unique and memorable self-deprecating humor. These are corporate image ads that define a company's brand.

Direct response ads contain a specific call-to-action to buy something or go somewhere to learn more. They are NOT (or should not be) void of a company's corporate branding standards or overall messaging platform. They should (and will) communicate a company's brand personality and implement their branding strategy.

Some ad's purpose in life will lean more or less toward pithy, metaphoric concepts while others try harder to get the purchasing process started. Regardless of the execution and intent, a brand identity is conveyed to the viewer. 



Yes that's true however using MS images for 'branding' purposes is hardly effective.  Branding is about making an association between a message or an image and a company's brand.  Would a company use Yuri's top selling businessman handshake image for branding?  I've added the link to his image below but probably everyone in this forum knows what image I'm talking about without even looking at it.

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-508163/stock-photo-business-handshake

There's a big difference between advertising and branding.  When a company uses an image for branding they use something unique to associate that image with their brand and only their brand.  If JP Morgan adds Yuri's image on a billboard, would buyers associate the image with JPM or would they associate it with a million other things?  By now they just say "God, not that guy again!"  Sure, JPM might use the image somewhere in a brochure, but it's not there for branding their products and services but rather to help illustrate a message they're conveying about their products or services.

We're not idiots.  We all know what branding is but Microstock is not used, or should not be used for branding.  The local plumber might use an MS image for branding but he probably doesn't know any better.

« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2012, 10:58 »
0
I have just been and looked for one of my highest selling images using it's most relevant keyword.  It usually sold several times a day at FT and has about 2000 dls but I've just realized that I haven't seen it sell for ages.   On the dl search it comes in on the second page (20 a page),  but the relevant search where it used to be one of the first images I now can't even find it after going through about 10 pages.

Yep...same here.  My top seller at FT is a simple green fabric background.  It shows up as #2 in the DL search, then drops to #210 in the relevance search (photos only).  

What's worse than the crappy placement is that only 15-20 or so of the preceding images depict green fabric backgrounds or are fabric backgrounds with patterns containing green.  The rest are spools of thread with zero green or fabric, piles and piles of laundry, and every type of object and non-fabric background imaginable.  40+ don't even show any green...not even a smidgen (several are plain backgrounds of a completely different solid color: white, red, brown, blue...take your pick!).  Why would a buyer even stick around when literally 91-93% of the relevance search leading up to my top-performing image is littered with irrelevant images?  

« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2012, 11:07 »
0
Given Fotolia's history you shouldn't be surprised by any little tricks they come up with to increase their own share of the take.

fotorob

  • Professional stock content producer
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2012, 11:21 »
0
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell.

Do you have proof for that thought? I was not able to understand how you reached that conclusion? In my experience most stock agencies consistently tried to shift earnings from newbies to pros...


« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2012, 12:59 »
0
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell.

Do you have proof for that thought? I was not able to understand how you reached that conclusion? In my experience most stock agencies consistently tried to shift earnings from newbies to pros...

I am sure stockmarketer will answer this very well like he always do but I believe you need to read more often here, top contributors are reporting this down trend for a while, I believe at least 4 or 5, dont think there are that much emeralds too, that said its incredible how you are still having nice earnings there, you always had actually

wut

« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2012, 14:36 »
0
It's pretty clear that both sites are punishing top sellers because they make too much money when their best selling images sell.

Do you have proof for that thought? I was not able to understand how you reached that conclusion? In my experience most stock agencies consistently tried to shift earnings from newbies to pros...

I am sure stockmarketer will answer this very well like he always do but I believe you need to read more often here, top contributors are reporting this down trend for a while, I believe at least 4 or 5, dont think there are that much emeralds too, that said its incredible how you are still having nice earnings there, you always had actually

That only confirms that it's about time they do so. It's just stupid that you're getting better search positions because you started doing MS first. With such policies you can't make it if you're new even if you're better than the top contributors, even much better

« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2012, 14:41 »
0
I'm too lazy to work this out in any detail, but doesn't DT actually GAIN from high sellers/high selling images continuing to do well? In which case, if they were punishing top sellers it could only be because they were worried about the buyers' reaction to the pricing levels. But several top sellers have said DT does not appear to be demoting their images (though I'm not sure it is my best sellers that are best placed in the searches).

« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2012, 14:53 »
0
Wow.  I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month!  Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more!   :o  That's seriously pathetic.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 14:55 by Karimala »

« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2012, 15:34 »
0
I despise fotolia and can only suggest that if they are already so worthless to you, then you should dump them. They deserve it.

« Reply #47 on: June 17, 2012, 16:39 »
0
I despise fotolia and can only suggest that if they are already so worthless to you, then you should dump them. They deserve it.

Workin' on it.  I started removing images a couple of weeks ago...just enough not to shoot myself in the foot.  As my income continues to increase from selling products and my Alamy portfolio, I'm removing images from IS, StockXpert and FT.  Just about ready to pull the plug on StockXpert. 

I learned a long time ago not to terminate my account before getting all of my ducks in a row.  That includes documenting every single image, because StockXpert doesn't always remove images from Thinkstock and Photos.com after they have terminated an account.  I don't trust those partner sites to remove my images or the agencies to report sales after an account has been terminated.  I know of one person here at MSG who terminated her StockXpert account in October, and her images are still on Thinkstock (yes, I notified her)!!!  Has she been paid for any sales?  Doubt it.           

OM

« Reply #48 on: June 17, 2012, 18:08 »
0
I have just been and looked for one of my highest selling images using it's most relevant keyword.  It usually sold several times a day at FT and has about 2000 dls but I've just realized that I haven't seen it sell for ages.   On the dl search it comes in on the second page (20 a page),  but the relevant search where it used to be one of the first images I now can't even find it after going through about 10 pages.

Yep...same here.  My top seller at FT is a simple green fabric background.  It shows up as #2 in the DL search, then drops to #210 in the relevance search (photos only).  

What's worse than the crappy placement is that only 15-20 or so of the preceding images depict green fabric backgrounds or are fabric backgrounds with patterns containing green.  The rest are spools of thread with zero green or fabric, piles and piles of laundry, and every type of object and non-fabric background imaginable.  40+ don't even show any green...not even a smidgen (several are plain backgrounds of a completely different solid color: white, red, brown, blue...take your pick!).  Why would a buyer even stick around when literally 91-93% of the relevance search leading up to my top-performing image is littered with irrelevant images?  

I Took a look at 'green fabric background' or even 'fabric background green'. I see what you mean. The search is next to worthless. In fact, it seems that the only thing that all the images on the first page have in common is that there is' green' in the keywords even when there's no green in the image. When I look at all the recent images (those with numbers 40+ and mostly with few views or downloads) on page 1, a couple of things become apparent: there are 3 images from the same author all with coffee beans and a green leaf and that many of those 40+ images are from Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine, Romania contributors. There is no bias towards contributor status/price as the whole gamut of contributors is represented from colourless to emerald. The only other thing I think I  noticed was that a high position in the search is favoured by not having an English title but I didn't really check that out so I could be wrong. (See my previous post in this thread about green quiche posing as tortilla!)

« Reply #49 on: June 17, 2012, 18:13 »
0
Wow.  I just noticed that Art of Business Cards, Mostphotos and Red Bubble are each earning more than Fotolia for me this month!  Even the t-shirt printing company I only started submitting to in mid-April has earned more!   :o  That's seriously pathetic.

willing to share that t-shirt printing company?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
9495 Views
Last post April 18, 2013, 14:22
by Perry
27 Replies
7404 Views
Last post May 18, 2013, 16:07
by TheDrift-
17 Replies
9788 Views
Last post April 14, 2017, 10:33
by Anna.kupelian
3 Replies
2286 Views
Last post February 28, 2019, 14:19
by kentannenbaum
0 Replies
2461 Views
Last post August 19, 2021, 18:14
by Elijah

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors