MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Have you had rejections on one site that got sales on another site?  (Read 3092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 17, 2012, 22:08 »
0
People have posted anecdotes that they often have had rejections that eventually sold well on other sites, but I haven't seen any specific examples of this.

It would be interesting to see if there's any commonality between them, it seems selective focus is a big killer in that it can both make an image work to call attention to the subject and therefore generate sales but also has the drawback that selective focus images often get automatically rejected by reviewers.

Natural sunlight seems to be something many people say reviewers often dislike and that it needs to be diffused for reviewers to pass it.

If you have an image that got rejected on one site and still made you money elsewhere, please post it to help us see what is going wrong in the reviewers' minds.


RacePhoto

« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2012, 00:17 »
0
Very simply, my top ten sellers on SS have been 80% refused on IS. And the two that are there, don't sell. (I'd have to check, that's a rough guesstimate)

It's kind of like, all apples are apples, but there are hundreds of varieties. Some better for cooking, some for eating, some for juice, and ???

Same with microstock. Some agencies know what they want and what direction their want their collection to go. So if what I have to offer, doesn't fit their needs, it may be refused. Meanwhile another place, markets to that type of content and I'll be accepted and it will sell.

Point is, I can't really compare what sells on one site to what's refused and doesn't sell on another site. They aren't the same customers or what that agency may cater to.

« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2012, 05:12 »
0
My best seller on IS and a top 10 image for me on 5 other sites has been rejected on Fotolia multiple times over the last 3 years.

fred

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2012, 06:12 »
0
My experience has been that, almost without exception, photos that get rejected on one site generate sales on another.  It's routine for me, and if there's any sort of discernible pattern, I certainly don't see it.  There seems to be a lot of subjectivity involved.

« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2012, 09:54 »
0
One of the reasons I no longer upload is the haphazard rejections from one site to another. For a six month period FT rejected EVERY upload while IS and SS and DT accepted 90%. And, yes, they sold on those other sites. Take any span of time and one site or another will reject a high number of uploads. What is consistant is the puzzling logic of reject reasons. It's as if inspectors had one button to push for rejections and the computer selected the reasons on a random basis.

Lagereek

« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2012, 10:03 »
0
Oh GOD!  yes!  most noticabe is an engineering image, refused at, IS, for being toned in Duplex blue, which is a very common advertising effect on metals or engineering parts. Since then, at SS, DT and FT,  its sold over 8K, times.
BTW, this is nothing new, happens all the time. Basically its all about how many beers the reviewer has managed to gozzle before tampering with his computer, with a bit of luck before he gets too zozzled, his wife comes in bashing him with a plastic dildo. :D

Dan

« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 10:46 »
0
     Had  one  rejected  by  other  sites.  Sold  7  times  on  DT.   there  are  oothers.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2012, 11:01 »
0
Happens a lot.  I'm glad.  Rejections by iS and DT made my best selling image on SS exclusive.   ;D

« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2012, 11:29 »
0
My best selling image on iStock has sold 1500+ times. Rejected by SS, FT. Sells well on DT. It's a thin DOF and not a particularly great image, but it is specific and useful.

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2012, 14:41 »
0
My best selling image on iStock has sold 1500+ times. Rejected by SS, FT. Sells well on DT. It's a thin DOF and not a particularly great image, but it is specific and useful.

Shallow depth of field, soft in front (might as well add, any shadows) Death Penalty on SS. That's just the way they work.  :D

Once we know the quirks of the agencies, it's easier to accept. And then what others have pointed out:

1) random rejections
2) lazy reviewers going for speed and pay
3) too many similars when they aren't
4) inconsistant acceptance and rejections

But the point is, some reasons are site related and you can start to know those and expect that they might or might not accept some images.

Did I forget Cinco? Attila the Reviewer!  ;D

Poncke

« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 15:42 »
0
Out of my entire SS portfolio FT rejected 82. They are not best sellers, but they get the occasional sale. So maybe FT was right. But then again, FT accepted photos that SS rejected and they get sales on FT.

Basically FT for me is the toughest site after DT, but I quit DT for their similars crap.

« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2012, 01:24 »
0

« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2012, 03:39 »
0
Some images accepted by all agencies don't sell, some rejected by one will generate sales on the others, hell - certain images I would even have rejected have sold,  THe only site that has rejected stuff that sold well (i consider 3 figure sales as good but I have low standards) is IS.  SS rejections in general have done little or no business elsewhere.

« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2012, 09:40 »
0
My best seller on DT with 100s of DLs was rejected by IS for focus.   I have seen it in use on the cover of a whole series of A4 size language learning pamphlets and somebody sent me a shot of it being used as a large poster at their local hospital.

« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2012, 04:38 »
0
My experience has been that, almost without exception, photos that get rejected on one site generate sales on another.  It's routine for me, and if there's any sort of discernible pattern, I certainly don't see it.  There seems to be a lot of subjectivity involved.

This

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2012, 11:16 »
0
Assuming no technical problem like noise, color fringing or snapshot problems etc; it seems the reviewr decides whether or not he/she likes the image.  If not, they choose any reason to dump it.  That doesn't mean they are the true judge for all sites, but they may possible get it right once in a while concerning their clientell.

Other than that I have no idea.  Seems every photog submitting to sites experiences this to some degree.  Of course there are those so good that it only happens on occasion, and theree are those that experience it with every batch.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2987 Views
Last post April 15, 2008, 07:13
by anonymous
8 Replies
4694 Views
Last post September 09, 2008, 19:29
by dnavarrojr
14 Replies
4187 Views
Last post October 11, 2008, 17:40
by louoates
19 Replies
6659 Views
Last post June 30, 2009, 21:20
by bad to the bone
5 Replies
2631 Views
Last post March 12, 2011, 08:12
by microstockphoto.co.uk

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results