MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Microbius on August 09, 2012, 09:32
-
Just had the thought, would this be preferable to, for example DTs similars policy as a way for agencies to clean up their collections?
It would be a way to seriously encourage contributors to only upload their best work and delete non performing images.
Then again, it would be a disincentive to producing niche work, would this matter on micro where you only really turn a decent profit on high volume?
-
It would lead to a very short tail and even more all of the images looking the same.
-
For me, DT's similars policy is a disaster. And I'd argue it's a disaster for them as well. I often get purchases of several images from the same shoot: same model, same outfit, same setting, different poses and composition. How many more would they sell if they didn't reject more than a few from a shoot?
I do well at every other site with large numbers of similar (in DT's view) images. And it's the only way to justify the expense. I don't care about the revenue from each individual image. All that matters to me is total revenue from a shoot, whether I get one good image or a hundred.
-
Just had the thought, would this be preferable to, for example DTs similars policy as a way for agencies to clean up their collections?
It would be a way to seriously encourage contributors to only upload their best work and delete non performing images.
Then again, it would be a disincentive to producing niche work, would this matter on micro where you only really turn a decent profit on high volume?
Wow I'd have 20 images on the site and never upload anything new. ;D (maybe ten?)
This is completely opposite of the Microstock, throw it up against the wall and see what sticks, submission game. It would mean shorter review times as people actually think about what 300 photos of a sliced vegetable, they are going to put up for sale. It's against the theory that more images mean more sales, even if every one of them is basically 50 of the same shot?
Revolutionary thoughts you are presenting here. LOL
-
I just don't see how a system like this could ever make sense.
Stock is about what sells well not what is "best". We all upload what we think will sell but for most of us we aren't good judges of what will and won't sell - not to mention that the search placement can materially affect initial sales which can then influence how images take off.
I'm not privy to any internal numbers, but I can't imagine the costs of unsold images affect agencies' bottom lines half as much as having the big sellers take off. In which case, you would want to reward those who bring you the most revenue without regard to how big their portfolio is overall.
-
Something else is working that way, I think they call it " Stock market"..
-
As a niche photographer, it would kill my business.
-
Not sure why it would matter. If your images are good and performing well, low performing images that don't sell well don't really compete with you because they're buried further back in the search.
-
I was thinking it may result in "a throw it against the wall and delete whatever doesn't stick" attitude in contributors, which may achieve what DT is trying to do by stopping similars going onto the site or what IS is doing by limiting uploads.
At least this way the contributor can decide how they want to streamline their portfolio to maximize returns, rather than having a reviewer do it (DT) or completely guessing before the image has had a chance to sell (IS).
In any case, I am not sure I would approve of the change, but thought it was an interesting idea to discuss.
-
I was thinking it may result in "a throw it against the wall and delete whatever doesn't stick" attitude in contributors, which may achieve what DT is trying to do by stopping similars going onto the site or what IS is doing by limiting uploads.
IS and DT are two different situations - IS is protecting exclusives by limiting uploads, not trying to "improve" the regular contributor's portfolio. The problem with deleting things that appear not to be selling is figuring out how long to wait. I've had several flaming images at IS that didn't sell for 7 months (one case) or a year in another. A best match lurch made them visible later, perhaps? At any rate, I don't delete images if I'm not forced to as you never know what event might surface them.
-
I also would never delete an image unless I was forced to, there is no point limiting your database exposure, even if something is unlikely to sell, at least it is another link on the site to your portfolio!
My reasoning was that this could force you to think about it and delete some older, non performing content, which for the agencies could be a good idea (though perhaps not for us)
I had never thought about IS primarily limiting uploads it to protect their exclusives, I thought it was to get contributors to only submit their best content, and the larger upload limits for exclusives as a carrot to get more exclusives signed on.
-
I was thinking it may result in "a throw it against the wall and delete whatever doesn't stick" attitude in contributors, which may achieve what DT is trying to do by stopping similars going onto the site or what IS is doing by limiting uploads.
At least this way the contributor can decide how they want to streamline their portfolio to maximize returns, rather than having a reviewer do it (DT) or completely guessing before the image has had a chance to sell (IS).
In any case, I am not sure I would approve of the change, but thought it was an interesting idea to discuss.
I can buy that. It's really not in a contributor's best interest to submit too many similars. If you split sells among two similar images, it's harder to climb on the popular search. That's why I try to not have similars, even on Shutterstock where some searches result in thumbnails that look like frames from a video. I think Dreamstime goes too far. A vertical and horizontal composition should be different enough; Shutterstock allows too many similars, which hurts all contributors by burying images on newest then hurting the similar contributor by splitting sales.
-
I don't think anybody should be paid any different than anybody else. These carrot/incentive systems are just kind of silly and an excuse to undercut artists. The solution to similars is fairly obvious. Just organize and group your files better. Unfortunately, that solution is time consuming and complicated, so you get quick fix band-aid solutions that nobody likes instead.
-
The solution to similars is fairly obvious. Just organize and group your files better. Unfortunately, that solution is time consuming and complicated, so you get quick fix band-aid solutions that nobody likes instead.
Agreed. I believe that increasing buyer choice is a net benefit for everyone and thus similars should be *encouraged*. This is roughly what I plan to implement at toonvectors.com (when the image library gets a little bigger):
- Group similar images by the same artist.
- Download count, view count, rating scores, etc. for the individual images are aggregated for the group.
- For search results, only one image from the group is displayed.
- The representative image for the group can vary based on context: most relevant, most popular, newest or a selected default.
- Additional user interface on individual image pages for buyer to compare similars in the group.
- With artist's approval, possibly a discount for buying a set of similars.
Obviously this is a little more work on the backend, but it's not unreasonable and the extra burden on reviewers can be lightened by automated detection of similars and possibly crowd-sourcing.