Author Topic: paranoid? maybe (Read 12650 times)

hatman12 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 22, 2007, 21:27 »

Quite right Nazdravie. Business is business.

fotografer · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2007, 00:07 »

Yes I totaly agree with Nazdravie as well. It makes sense to promote good portfolios. If someone has a few good images and the rest average and some one else has an excellent portfolio it's good business to draw attention to the good one because if the buyer has a look at the portfolio you want them to see the one with lots of great images to get a much better impression of the site.

Beckyabell · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2007, 00:38 »

Quote from: seeker on October 22, 2007, 18:57

Quote from: Beckyabell on October 19, 2007, 16:01
Most popular = most downloads
....... That's why those files stay at the top, they are the most popular images.... designers/buyers determine this, not the site.

I don't buy this statement. I have seen multiple images amongst the popular images that have their equal or better.

Fair enough....... but it is still determined by those who buy the images.

***edited for spelling reasons

Beckyabell · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2007, 00:39 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on October 22, 2007, 20:35

I think they'll do whatever makes sense to make more money both for the company and individual reviewer.

Why wouldn't it be possible for agencies to rate contributors based on sales probability to give preference to "VIPs"? Casinos do it. Airlines do it.

If you have person A who has a 90%+ approval rate, submits a ton of stuff, and sells a ton of stuff, and person B who has a 50% acceptance rate and doesn't sell a whole lot, wouldn't it make sense to spend more time on the As and leave the Bs in the review que until As are taken care of? Or have the As show up higher in searches? The agency would make more money spending time on As.

How well would a photographer do if they spent equal time on the Big 6 and the other 50 new sites? Of course you give preference to what makes you more money. Certainly the agencies do too.

This is the most well-informed/non-alarmist statement in this thread.

Beckyabell · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2007, 01:22 »

It does have a name........ Crowdsourcing. Google it. Only the strong survive, No room for a conspirarcy theory.

........ Just my opinion though.

madelaide · « **Reply #30 on:** October 23, 2007, 06:33 »

I agree with Nazdravie, I only think it's wrong if agencies deny such differential.

Regards,
Adelaide

digiology · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2007, 09:30 »

We all know how image reviews vary from site to site - its very subjective - why would the buyer be any different? One persons treasure is another's trash. If the image is accepted by the site in the first place should it not be equally promoted?

paranoid? definately!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2007, 12:58 »

Quote from: digiology on October 23, 2007, 09:30

If the image is accepted by the site in the first place should it not be equally promoted?

So if you get accepted to 50 agencies, do you spend equal time on all of them? Or do you spend more time on the top 5 or 10?

Some sites will accept most images that meet technical requirements. Does this mean it will sell well? Who knows?

Should they turn away a brick wall image because it only sells 25 a year? Probably not because it still sells something. But should they spend equal time promoting portfolios with a hundred brick walls that sell dozens a year versus portfolios with thousands of customer service models that sell tens of thousands a year? I wouldn't.

I wonder if the 80/20 rule applies to microstock? Do 20% of the contributors make up 80% of an agency's revenue? If so, chances are good it will take far less effort and produce much higher sales if an agency invested more resources in that 20%.

Paranoid? No. Profitible business practice.

seeker · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2007, 16:52 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on October 22, 2007, 20:35

I think they'll do whatever makes sense to make more money both for the company and individual reviewer.

Why wouldn't it be possible for agencies to rate contributors based on sales probability to give preference to "VIPs"? Casinos do it. Airlines do it.

If you have person A who has a 90%+ approval rate, submits a ton of stuff, and sells a ton of stuff, and person B who has a 50% acceptance rate and doesn't sell a whole lot, wouldn't it make sense to spend more time on the As and leave the Bs in the review que until As are taken care of? Or have the As show up higher in searches? The agency would make more money spending time on As.

How well would a photographer do if they spent equal time on the Big 6 and the other 50 new sites? Of course you give preference to what makes you more money. Certainly the agencies do too.

Ok, but don't they have an obligation to you the contributor, one facet upon which their business is built, to give you equal unhindered access to as many sales as possible?

JC-SL · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2007, 17:32 »

Seeker...you got it right when you said contributors are "one facet upon which their business is built". But they are not THE facet! get it?... it's a business and decisions, however painful to some, must be made for the betterment of the overall business and not every contributor. If the site had loads images but no sales, there would be complaints too.

The strong will survive....

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2007, 17:50 »

Quote from: seeker on October 23, 2007, 16:52

Ok, but don't they have an obligation to you the contributor, one facet upon which their business is built, to give you equal unhindered access to as many sales as possible?

LOL. I bet you won't find anything about equal treatment obligations in any agency's terms and conditions.

They're a business. They have one objective, finanical gain. And most decisions will be somehow tied to their financial objectives. Fairness and financial gain normally are opposing forces in business.

digiology · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2007, 18:03 »

Who says the sites won't generate the same sales using a broader facet of contributers? They would just be offering the customer more variety rather than pages of simular shots (at slightly different angles). They can promote individuals all they like - thats what "image of the week, editors pick, etc" is for. But the search should still give everyone equal opportunity to sell their photos. The site will get the sale anyways so whats the difference whether it comes from a high profile port or not.

Disclaimer - The views I have expressed in this thread are just my paranoid opinions and in no way suggest our beloved microstock sites would ever tinker with the search.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #37 on:** October 23, 2007, 18:17 »

Quote from: digiology on October 23, 2007, 18:03

Disclaimer - The views I have expressed in this thread are just my paranoid opinions and in no way suggest our beloved microstock sites would ever tinker with the search.

No our beloved agencies would never tinker with the search. Especially Dreamstime who doesn't base their search result placement on your image approval rating

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/watch-your-dreamstime-approval-rate.html

digiology · « **Reply #38 on:** October 23, 2007, 18:34 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on October 23, 2007, 18:17

Quote from: digiology on October 23, 2007, 18:03
Disclaimer - The views I have expressed in this thread are just my paranoid opinions and in no way suggest our beloved microstock sites would ever tinker with the search.

No our beloved agencies would never tinker with the search. Especially Dreamstime who doesn't base their search result placement on your image approval rating

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/watch-your-dreamstime-approval-rate.html

Yes - and this is a great disservice to their customers. There is nothing wrong with choices. They can punish the contributor all they like (lower upload limits, etc). But they should make it easy for customers to find what they want. Isn't that what really matters - the customer - not us

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #39 on:** October 23, 2007, 18:45 »

How is this punishing the customer? The agency established a qualification process that maintains a minimum standard of quality of images. Images just above that minimum are probably "just okay" and not great quality.

If you have a high acceptance rating, you're probably a good photographer that consistently creates good quality images that buyers want. If you have a low acceptance rating you probably are a photographer that produces inconsistent quality which most buyers would prefer to avoid.

Wouldn't a buyer benefit from consistently finding good quality images first as opposed to a mix of good and questionable images?

digiology · « **Reply #40 on:** October 23, 2007, 18:55 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on October 23, 2007, 18:45

How is this punishing the customer? The agency established a qualification process that maintains a minimum standard of quality of images. Images just above that minimum are probably "just okay" and not great quality.

If you have a high acceptance rating, you're probably a good photographer that consistently creates good quality images that buyers want. If you have a low acceptance rating you probably are a photographer that produces inconsistent quality which most buyers would prefer to avoid.

Wouldn't a buyer benefit from consistently finding good quality images first as opposed to a mix of good and questionable images?

I said punishing the contributor not customer.

A low acceptance rate does not always mean the contributor is offering low quality images. Maybe just not what the site is looking for (but maybe what the customer is looking for).

Anyways, just trying to show both sides of the coin here.

StockManiac · « **Reply #41 on:** October 23, 2007, 19:16 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on October 23, 2007, 18:45

If you have a high acceptance rating, you're probably a good photographer that consistently creates good quality images that buyers want. If you have a low acceptance rating you probably are a photographer that produces inconsistent quality which most buyers would prefer to avoid.

Sorry, but I have to whole-heartedly disagree with that statement. There are too many factors that go into the acceptance rating to simplify it with such a statement.

First, contributors that joined DT earlier will more likely have a higher acceptance percentage than those that joined later. It is a known fact that new sites want to build up their portfolio and therefore reject less images.

Second, contributors that submitted the first images in a category will also have higher acceptance ratios than those that submit similar images later. For example, if you were the first contributor to upload "two business men shaking hands" or "woman talking on cell phone", you would have an easier time getting them approved than today. One of the most popular issues that contributors have is getting the "we have too many of these" rejections even thought the images might be better in quality.

Third, if a contributor takes images that are not conventional and experiments with different styles, they will probably have a higher rejection rate than those that submit the basic conventional image that is submitted. Images with creative lighting, or even images that have advanced Photoshop editing are more likely to be shot down than those that have standard lighting or less creative editing.

Fourth, there is no proven correlation between acceptance rating and sales (except on DT where they have forced a correlation). While sites pretend that they know what sells, it has been shown time and again that images that get rejected on one site sell like crazy on another. There are plenty of contributors that have low approval ratings that sell loads of images, and there are plenty of contributors with high approval ratings that have very few sales.

Finally, the images should speak for themselves. A contributor might submit the most perfect image of "woman on cell phone", but if they don't have a high acceptance rating, then a buyer will probably never find that perfect image. How does that help the buyer? It doesn't.

Beckyabell · « **Reply #42 on:** October 23, 2007, 22:14 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on October 23, 2007, 18:45

How is this punishing the customer? The agency established a qualification process that maintains a minimum standard of quality of images. Images just above that minimum are probably "just okay" and not great quality.

If you have a high acceptance rating, you're probably a good photographer that consistently creates good quality images that buyers want. If you have a low acceptance rating you probably are a photographer that produces inconsistent quality which most buyers would prefer to avoid.

Wouldn't a buyer benefit from consistently finding good quality images first as opposed to a mix of good and questionable images?

Completely agree.......... Good point.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: paranoid? maybe (Read 12650 times)

hatman12

fotografer

Beckyabell

Beckyabell

Beckyabell

madelaide

digiology

PaulieWalnuts

seeker

JC-SL

PaulieWalnuts

digiology

PaulieWalnuts

digiology

PaulieWalnuts

digiology

StockManiac

Beckyabell

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors