MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: wut on May 07, 2012, 05:55
-
As I'm always saying, but got to really see it today on SS when I finally started tracking my sets. Niche, well executed subjects will always win over huge sets of similars just hoping a designer might need more angles or that he'll find the right one this way. In reality no one will even spot them and most buyers hate seeing tens of images that are virtually identical to each other and suck at the same time (they do in 99% of the cases just go through sites searching by age, big sets=low quality). I've never sold many licences from such series (but then again I have just 2 such series). I always do best when I get home with only a handful of photos in a bad mood really for not getting more shots out of the shoot (and I'm talking about 8 shots or so, not 40, what some may consider a small or even tiny amount).
Here are the results, I think they paint a nice picture, that supports what I'm saying:
(http://i48.tinypic.com/33wp284.jpg)
-
This topic gets hashed out about once per week so I'm going to interpret what my cynical eyes see...
Line 1 - 50.4 cents per download
Line 2 - 51.3 cents per download
Line 3 - 50.1 cents per download
Line 4 - 62.7 cents per download
Line 5 - 44.4 cents per download
In the meantime...this crappy non-quality image of mine:
(http://i50.tinypic.com/2lt32tu.jpg)
Has been downloaded twice since I created it last October....at $35 per download. You keep your quality. I'm happy shooting crappy images. ;D
-
This topic gets hashed out about once per week so I'm going to interpret what my cynical eyes see...
Line 1 - 50.4 cents per download
Line 2 - 51.3 cents per download
Line 3 - 50.1 cents per download
Line 4 - 62.7 cents per download
Line 5 - 44.4 cents per download
In the meantime...this crappy non-quality image of mine:
([url]http://i50.tinypic.com/2lt32tu.jpg[/url])
Has been downloaded twice since I created it last October....at $35 per download. You keep your quality. I'm happy shooting crappy images. ;D
In the mean time every line showing pathetic RPD, made at least 4x more money than, as you called it, your crappy images ;)
Put it on SS and you'll see what you get. Yes, comparing apples to oranges, just as well if I'd look at my sales and RPD of the same photos on Alamy ;)
-
Shutterstock refused the image...as well as the other micros. I don't blame them.
I shot the image while walking home...the image has made $70 for 10 minutes of work. That's the equivalent of $350/hour. Tell us...how much time did you spend on your quality niche image?
The point is, one man's trash is another man's treasure. If we all shot the same thing, there would be no point in what we do. What you consider "quality" may be considered crap by a buyer. What you consider crap may be considered useful and valuable to a buyer.
If it helps, I have the same cycnical views of competitions put on by organizations like the PPA - I don't shoot for other photographers, I shoot for the customer. I saw potential in the image for a background and I shot it. It's crap - it's a snapshot - it's not isolated over white and it doesn't have a headset or a handshake. It is profitable though.
-
it's not isolated over white and it doesn't have a headset or a handshake
That's what I consider crap. Utter crap ;) (but yes, it made money up to a few years ago)
-
We dont determine if its quality or not, thats up to the viewer to decide. All we can do is hope thats some of our work is regarded as, quality. The quality concious buyer will look and pay for quality but really? how many quality concious buyers do you think exist in the micro world? I will bet, 8 out of 10, havent got a clue about quality, nor the amount of work you have put in for an image selling for a buck.
I mean whats quality? Warhols, Campbell soup cans? Heinz beans cans? yet you wouldnt get one under a million bucks. A pictures quality is like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
Some would argue: its taken by an HD4, Binuscan PP, etc, etc, expensive hard and softwares, so, it must be quality, but in reallity, it dont mean a thingy.
-
I think we can determine what quality is, after all, we're photographers. Who else can determine it, if not us. But if it has selling potential, that's another story altogether. That indeed is for the buyers to decide. But what I was aiming at in the OP is quantity vs quality, or better said, well though and executed images, that were also carefully selected vs let's just shoot some crap/model isolated on white, upload 50+ images from a single series and hope for the best.
Camera, lens etc quality indeed doesn't mean a thing. Well at least not until you don't get over at least 2 mpix (most photos are sold in XS,S and M, I'd say the vast majority when it comes to most contributors). Better gear won't make the concept better, more original or the composition great etc.
-
I think we can determine what quality is, after all, we're photographers. Who else can determine it, if not us. But if it has selling potential, that's another story altogether. That indeed is for the buyers to decide. But what I was aiming at in the OP is quantity vs quality, or better said, well though and executed images, that were also carefully selected vs let's just shoot some crap/model isolated on white, upload 50+ images from a single series and hope for the best.
Camera, lens etc quality indeed doesn't mean a thing. Well at least not until you don't get over at least 2 mpix (most photos are sold in XS,S and M, I'd say the vast majority when it comes to most contributors). Better gear won't make the concept better, more original or the composition great etc.
You havent heard the old famous saying then? : photographers are the worlds WORST judges and especially when judging their very own pictures. This expression came around with the famous Magnum agency, :)
-
I did a couple of quality images back in high school. I was very proud of them. But for the last 40 years i have been concentrating on pictures that someone will pay for. It seems to work out better , over the long run.
-
OK, but you 2 do realize, that among the top sellers, let's say among the popular results at SS, the vast majority of the photos are quality, not the opposite. Because like sheat, the best images always float to the top ;) . Let's focus on facts now, not personal opinions.
Not saying that I don't agree with you on judging the quality. Of course I mean quality within the stock images, stocky stuff, not something you shot in high school and you're proud of. Or art images etc, that are great, but won't sell. No, among those that are in the stock libraries
-
OK - here's a question for you. Which image is of better quality....
(http://i45.tinypic.com/29w02dt.jpg)
(http://i50.tinypic.com/x654p.jpg)
One image outsells the other by at least 10 to 1.
I'll give you a hint...don't tell anyone, but, they are the same image...
-
OK - here's a question for you. Which image is of better quality....
([url]http://i45.tinypic.com/29w02dt.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i50.tinypic.com/x654p.jpg[/url])
One image outsells the other by at least 10 to 1.
I'll give you a hint...don't tell anyone, but, they are the same image...
Honestly, both are crap. I'd say the isolated could be used more broadly (especially because the bg is really messy and distracting), but judging from what you tried to show me with your first photo, I'd say the first.
-
The image isolated over white is my best seller at Shutterstock.
Want to know a little industry trade secret...the folks that are successful at this and do it for a living...they would take the first image, upload it. They would isolate it as I have...and they will upload it. They will take an image of an American Flag, and upload it it. They would isolate the image of the American Flag, and upload it. They would take the isolated image of the American Flag and the isolated image of the score board, and combine them, and they would upload it.
The guy that was the master at this was Bob Mizerak (RJMIZ). He passed away a couple of years ago...his portfolio lives on at DT.
So....to get back to your original point...quality vs. quantity. Based on the example above...5 images modified (quantity) or 2 images straight out of the camera (quality)?
It takes folks a while to figure this out. It clicked with Wisconsinart on DT yesterday per his recent blog post...some folks have been doing this for years (and it was much easier to get away with in the early years).
-
We dont determine if its quality or not, thats up to the viewer to decide. All we can do is hope thats some of our work is regarded as, quality. The quality concious buyer will look and pay for quality but really? how many quality concious buyers do you think exist in the micro world? I will bet, 8 out of 10, havent got a clue about quality, nor the amount of work you have put in for an image selling for a buck.
I mean whats quality? Warhols, Campbell soup cans? Heinz beans cans? yet you wouldnt get one under a million bucks. A pictures quality is like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
Some would argue: its taken by an HD4, Binuscan PP, etc, etc, expensive hard and softwares, so, it must be quality, but in reallity, it dont mean a thingy.
I fully agree! Usually I would tend to agree with Wut - quality beats quantity. However, after 6 years in MS I learned that you NEVER know what a buyer wants or needs. Sometimes I am even surprised what I buy myself. I have similars. I sell similars. I am currently happy with my income. And yes, many buyers are not professional designers and don`t know much about quality.
-
The image isolated over white is my best seller at Shutterstock.
Want to know a little industry trade secret...the folks that are successful at this and do it for a living...they would take the first image, upload it. They would isolate it as I have...and they will upload it. They will take an image of an American Flag, and upload it it. They would isolate the image of the American Flag, and upload it. They would take the isolated image of the American Flag and the isolated image of the score board, and combine them, and they would upload it.
The guy that was the master at this was Bob Mizerak (RJMIZ). He passed away a couple of years ago...his portfolio lives on at DT.
So....to get back to your original point...quality vs. quantity. Based on the example above...5 images modified (quantity) or 2 images straight out of the camera (quality)?
It takes folks a while to figure this out. It clicked with Wisconsinart on DT yesterday per his recent blog post...some folks have been doing this for years (and it was much easier to get away with in the early years).
Well I don't see any top contributors doing it.
What you're saying is not quantity over quality issue, well at least not exactly. It's not about taking and also uploading 5x more shots that you normally would (if you had an assignment or had to pick out the best images), but rather about composing images, making 3 out of one etc.
I guess they won't get away with it much longer, at least not on such a big scale to make it worth while. Even if they get accepted the number of buyers will diminish in time. Because the quality standards are rising. Look at what MS looked like back in 2004/05 and what it looks like now, how good the new images have to be to really sell. I know since I've started just over 2 years ago and I know I can't get away with such simple, snapshot kinda images that sold in the beginning of MS (brick walls and everything you could just come by and shoot).
-
We dont determine if its quality or not, thats up to the viewer to decide. All we can do is hope thats some of our work is regarded as, quality. The quality concious buyer will look and pay for quality but really? how many quality concious buyers do you think exist in the micro world? I will bet, 8 out of 10, havent got a clue about quality, nor the amount of work you have put in for an image selling for a buck.
I mean whats quality? Warhols, Campbell soup cans? Heinz beans cans? yet you wouldnt get one under a million bucks. A pictures quality is like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
Some would argue: its taken by an HD4, Binuscan PP, etc, etc, expensive hard and softwares, so, it must be quality, but in reallity, it dont mean a thingy.
I fully agree! Usually I would tend to agree with Wut - quality beats quantity. However, after 6 years in MS I learned that you NEVER know what a buyer wants or needs. Sometimes I am even surprised what I buy myself. I have similars. I sell similars. I am currently happy with my income. And yes, many buyers are not professional designers and don`t know much about quality.
I agree about most MS buyers are clueless, but than again velocicarpo, humour me and make a few sets at SS ;) .
P.S. I posted a few questions for you in the 3rd world country traveling thread and am very interested in your opinion since you're a native. I'd very much appreciate it if you're in the mood ;)
-
Well I don't see any top contributors doing it.
Hahahahaha.....take a look at Yuri's portfolio. You may not see it because he has so many images, but he does it...and quite often.
Take a look at this image => http://fr.fotolia.com/id/7469010 (http://fr.fotolia.com/id/7469010)
Do you really think he got 21 people together at once or do you think it's a composite of various people from various shoots? Before you answer, take a look at the reflection on the ground - the front folks are missing. Someone else posted this image in a different thread.
The reason it isn't obvious to you is because of the quantity of images he has in his portfolio. When you average 100 images from a shoot, and create composites from them and combine them with multiple other shoots, and they are mixed in with 20,000 other images, it's not as noticeable.
-
But this is not really comparable to what you wrote in your previous post. Not even close enough. He does this occasionally with studio shots, you said it should be done all the time with on location shots (like your score board or the American flag that you mentioned), basically making 3 images out of every single one. This is not even photography anymore, in it's true meaning that is.
-
But this is not really comparable to what you wrote in your previous post. Not even close enough. He does this occasionally with studio shots, you said it should be done all the time with on location shots (like your score board or the American flag that you mentioned), basically making 3 images out of every single one. This is not even photography anymore, in it's true meaning that is.
I never said something should be done or shouldn't. I was pointing out the quantity over quality issue. I agree it isn't photography - it's graphic design. Back in 2005 and 2006 RJMIZ was a top contributor. I know many folks have and still do take this approach...and many are now considered top contributors and they weren't back then (including Yuri).
You can learn a lot by looking through a person's portfolio. Not to look at what their top sellers are so you can copy them, or to compare your work to theirs, or to try to judge what is "quality" or what is "marketable" but to look and see how they do business. You will learn a ton from it.
-
You can learn a lot by looking through a person's portfolio. Not to look at what their top sellers are so you can copy them, or to compare your work to theirs, or to try to judge what is "quality" or what is "marketable" but to look and see how they do business. You will learn a ton from it.
I completely agree. And do that often.
-
I think we can determine what quality is, after all, we're photographers. Who else can determine it, if not us. But if it has selling potential, that's another story altogether. That indeed is for the buyers to decide. But what I was aiming at in the OP is quantity vs quality, or better said, well though and executed images, that were also carefully selected vs let's just shoot some crap/model isolated on white, upload 50+ images from a single series and hope for the best.
Camera, lens etc quality indeed doesn't mean a thing. Well at least not until you don't get over at least 2 mpix (most photos are sold in XS,S and M, I'd say the vast majority when it comes to most contributors). Better gear won't make the concept better, more original or the composition great etc.
But the post really has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with sales potential....
-
I had a very definite policy of quality over quantity for about a year out of the six or so I've been at this. It was the only time I have seen a downturn. Last year or so I have been definitely concentrating on quantity over quality, and the growth is back better than ever.
You know what the funny thing is? the more images I create the better I get. The time I was really taking my time going for quality I saw next to no improvement in my work. Now I am just going for quantity I can't help but improve and my quality has also shot up unbidden.
-
"Quality" is totally subjective/opinion.
The image which fills a buyer's need is the best one for their purpose.
Whether you submit similars is up to the rules of each agency and your own choice. Occasionally buyers ask for several similars of one model for a particular purpose. Of course, if you rate rpi more than overall earnings, or care two hoots about your dl/ul ratio, you won't upload similars.
-
Quality?, quantity?, who cares? the art of Micro, is to find a nieche, then squeeze the lifeblood out of it, thats the secret.
Just look at all the lifestyle shooters, I mean really, could you tell one handshake, one group of people, one young business-man, from another. All the top-ten black diamonds at, IS, are into lifestyles and you couldnt separate one from another, to me they look all the same. BUT! they do sell and sell well, all of them.
That gives a fair idea of what the average micro buyer is after, doesnt it? dont give a toss about quality. The average micro buyer is a punter, not an art-director.
-
That gives a fair idea of what the average micro buyer is after, doesnt it? dont give a toss about quality. The average micro buyer is a punter, not an art-director.
agreed - but then why oh why do some of the MS agencies go ape$h!t in rejecting images that may have a small flaw when viewed at 200%?
Riddle me that Batman...
-
My sister doesn't want me to upload lots of pictures of my niece, and I have no idea what a nieche is. :) If you mean niche - then that is a good idea, and getting enough images (quantity) so that nobody else notices it is an available niche is a good idea and so you cover whatever needs there might be in that niche.
There is a saying "quantity has a quality of its own" or something like that. Of course quality (defined in microstock by selling) is better than not quality, but you need quantity too. That doesn't mean 100's of near identical images of the same model in the same clothes, that means 1000s of different images of different models and objects and situations and props and clothes (or whatever niches you might find).
-
agreed - but then why oh why do some of the MS agencies go ape$h!t in rejecting images that may have a small flaw when viewed at 200%?
Riddle me that Batman...
Because that's what the "management" tells the reviewers to do...and it's not just in microstock, it's also in tradtional stock.
What's funny is if you watch Creative Live, invariabley at each session, the person giving the talk will tell the audience straight out "not all of my images are in focus". Don Giannatti even showed up to the workshop with a 60D and went on for about 20 minutes about how his 10D was good enough for a magazine spread. He even went on to say how art directors are full of it when they decide one camera is better than another for a photo shoot...and he's right.
I know that Christa Meola said not all of her images are in focus (and she outsources all her retouching) and Sue Bryce said in her session that not all of her images are in focus.
We pixel peep because the agencies make us in order to get accepted...and in the mean time, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are assigning their folks iPhones so they can get snaps for the paper.
-
The image isolated over white is my best seller at Shutterstock.
Want to know a little industry trade secret...the folks that are successful at this and do it for a living...they would take the first image, upload it. They would isolate it as I have...and they will upload it. They will take an image of an American Flag, and upload it it. They would isolate the image of the American Flag, and upload it. They would take the isolated image of the American Flag and the isolated image of the score board, and combine them, and they would upload it.
The guy that was the master at this was Bob Mizerak (RJMIZ). He passed away a couple of years ago...his portfolio lives on at DT.
So....to get back to your original point...quality vs. quantity. Based on the example above...5 images modified (quantity) or 2 images straight out of the camera (quality)?
It takes folks a while to figure this out. It clicked with Wisconsinart on DT yesterday per his recent blog post...some folks have been doing this for years (and it was much easier to get away with in the early years).
Well I don't see any top contributors doing it.
What you're saying is not quantity over quality issue, well at least not exactly. It's not about taking and also uploading 5x more shots that you normally would (if you had an assignment or had to pick out the best images), but rather about composing images, making 3 out of one etc.
I happened across the portfolio of one of the top folks doing this. They outsell me by a wide margin and have tens of thousands of images to my lousy 7k. And they composite stuff together. A LOT. I was genuinely shocked at how many of this individual's best sellers are people on white composited together and layered in every conceivable combination.
I tried with a couple of images and it took me a long time to get the composites right and seamless. I don't think doing that sort of thing in volume would be easy money at all. Took me quite a bit longer than just editing and uploading images from a shoot. I am sure this individual actually has a team that does this kind of photoshop work.
But still, it is being done and some folks are maximizing every single shoot in every conceivable way.
-
Quality always wins. I agree that the less photos in a shooting, the better sales. But here we are not talking of an artsy quality but of an specific and very different "stock quality" that most of us should be able to indentify at first sight. "Surprises" with "bad" photos that shouldn't sell but sell are every day more scarce, and most of them in starved feed niches.
-
Quality always wins. I agree that the less photos in a shooting, the better sales. But here we are not talking of an artsy quality but of an specific and very different "stock quality" that most of us should be able to indentify at first sight. "Surprises" with "bad" photos that shouldn't sell but sell are every day more scarce, and most of them in starved feed niches.
Bingo.
Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but the rule always has been and always will be that quality wins.
There's a certain person who almost exclusively sells images at SS (voluntarily) and boasts a 10k image portfolio and huge sales. It was recently discovered that his "huge" sales are generally in the neighborhood of 50-60 DLs per weekday at SS. Not the numbers you'd expect with a portfolio of that size. They're mostly crap images, which is why they aren't selling well. 10k high-quality images would earn the guy a nice high 4-figure monthly income. 10k crap images, as evidenced here, just maybe gets you enough to cover your car payment. Maybe.
-
Quality always wins. I agree that the less photos in a shooting, the better sales. But here we are not talking of an artsy quality but of an specific and very different "stock quality" that most of us should be able to indentify at first sight. "Surprises" with "bad" photos that shouldn't sell but sell are every day more scarce, and most of them in starved feed niches.
Bingo.
Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but the rule always has been and always will be that quality wins.
There's a certain person who almost exclusively sells images at SS (voluntarily) and boasts a 10k image portfolio and huge sales. It was recently discovered that his "huge" sales are generally in the neighborhood of 50-60 DLs per weekday at SS. Not the numbers you'd expect with a portfolio of that size. They're mostly crap images, which is why they aren't selling well. 10k high-quality images would earn the guy a nice high 4-figure monthly income. 10k crap images, as evidenced here, just maybe gets you enough to cover your car payment. Maybe.
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
-
Quality always wins. I agree that the less photos in a shooting, the better sales. But here we are not talking of an artsy quality but of an specific and very different "stock quality" that most of us should be able to indentify at first sight. "Surprises" with "bad" photos that shouldn't sell but sell are every day more scarce, and most of them in starved feed niches.
Bingo.
Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but the rule always has been and always will be that quality wins.
There's a certain person who almost exclusively sells images at SS (voluntarily) and boasts a 10k image portfolio and huge sales. It was recently discovered that his "huge" sales are generally in the neighborhood of 50-60 DLs per weekday at SS. Not the numbers you'd expect with a portfolio of that size. They're mostly crap images, which is why they aren't selling well. 10k high-quality images would earn the guy a nice high 4-figure monthly income. 10k crap images, as evidenced here, just maybe gets you enough to cover your car payment. Maybe.
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
-
It's interesting that in this thread - when we say "quality" the reference is always to Shutterstock.
...and you know, I know a guy that sells RM images, who currently has more than 85k images in his portfolio, and he makes over $100,000 per year and has been since 1998...and the majority of his images are "crap" when it comes to what the micros perceive as quality. He tried RF one afternoon - he shot about 2,000 images and uploaded them. He found RF wasn't worth the money (as others have found).
I can point to that person though a press release...can you name the person, the portfolio, etc.?
http://www.alamy.com/pressreleases/2011/earn_money_from_your_photos.asp (http://www.alamy.com/pressreleases/2011/earn_money_from_your_photos.asp)
-
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
That's fine. Now just tell me the secret of shooting images that are each guaranteed to make $1,000 a year and I'll get on with it. Until then, I suppose I'll just have to keep churning out my LCV stuff.
-
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
That's fine. Now just tell me the secret of shooting images that are each guaranteed to make $1,000 a year and I'll get on with it. Until then, I suppose I'll just have to keep churning out my LCV stuff.
Hard core porn, name of the game me old mate, hard core porn. ;D
-
Good agencies and marketing trump quantity and quality.
-
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
That's fine. Now just tell me the secret of shooting images that are each guaranteed to make $1,000 a year and I'll get on with it. Until then, I suppose I'll just have to keep churning out my LCV stuff.
Hard core porn, name of the game me old mate, hard core porn. ;D
Yes, but it has to be niched. Something like giant * midgets, 3 titted hoes etc ;)
-
We dont determine if its quality or not, thats up to the viewer to decide. All we can do is hope thats some of our work is regarded as, quality. The quality concious buyer will look and pay for quality but really? how many quality concious buyers do you think exist in the micro world? I will bet, 8 out of 10, havent got a clue about quality, nor the amount of work you have put in for an image selling for a buck.
I mean whats quality? Warhols, Campbell soup cans? Heinz beans cans? yet you wouldnt get one under a million bucks. A pictures quality is like beauty, its in the eyes of the beholder.
Some would argue: its taken by an HD4, Binuscan PP, etc, etc, expensive hard and softwares, so, it must be quality, but in reallity, it dont mean a thingy.
DUDE!! Keep spreading this gospel. The more believers you attract..., the happier I am. 8)
-
Isnt this discussion a bit pointless, since microstock is all about volume.
Degrees of volume.
I would say that in this pop world of volume, precision on keywords are more important than quality.
Considering there actually is a review proces that sets a certain minimum quality that is good enough for the customer.
-
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
It's not just quality, it's also originality! If you can combine the two into one image then you almost certainly have a hot seller (on IS at least). Whether you prefer 1 image making $100/mth or 100 images making $1/mth each, makes little difference in the short term. But I think in the long run it well, because quality normally lasts longer and LCV's fade away. I acknowledge there are always examples that will break this theory but in general I think there is truth in it.
-
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
It's not just quality, it's also originality! If you can combine the two into one image then you almost certainly have a hot seller (on IS at least). Whether you prefer 1 image making $100/mth or 100 images making $1/mth each, makes little difference in the short term. But I think in the long run it well, because quality normally lasts longer and LCV's fade away. I acknowledge there are always examples that will break this theory but in general I think there is truth in it.
Indeed, what I meant under quality is not IQ, well that too, but most importantly, originality, great concept, composition, lighting, authenticity, good models (that can do what you ask of them)...
-
You think thats odd? well get this. I know a guy in the RM, he has got around 45 shots in his port and he earns around 45K, per year.
That's what I'm talking about!!!
Finally, some ppl get it. I'm so happy! :D
It's not just quality, it's also originality! If you can combine the two into one image then you almost certainly have a hot seller (on IS at least). Whether you prefer 1 image making $100/mth or 100 images making $1/mth each, makes little difference in the short term. But I think in the long run it well, because quality normally lasts longer and LCV's fade away. I acknowledge there are always examples that will break this theory but in general I think there is truth in it.
And how long before originality is copied to death? I've seen it happen with my own stuff, where a good seller suddenly finds that there a load of imitations. I can think of one where every single element in a set-up has been copied precisely by a fairly high-up iStock exclusive and lots of others have produced very similar stuff. Consequently, a one-time hot seller is now dead in the water.
-
make it difficult to copy.
Work inside niches with setups and procedures that cannot so easily be copied.
-
I totally agree with that JPSDK.
Very much enjoying all your posts today. :)
-
Thanks ruby.
-
make it difficult to copy.
Work inside niches with setups and procedures that cannot so easily be copied.
You're creating a lot of problems for yourself. Niches are LCV (or very high cost), otherwise everybody would already be there, special setups could well be expensive and you will expend a lot of time and effort on producing something that may not get copied but probably won't sell well.
I'd be very interested to see an example of a microstock cheaply-produced, hard to copy, big-selling, niche image, because I think that is full of contradictions.
I know there is a guy doing traditional video stock who has spent more than $250,000 on special stabilisation equipment to shoot from helicopters and reckoned this was going to be lucrative niche ... but I don't think that is a microstock option.
-
It's not just quality, it's also originality! If you can combine the two into one image then you almost certainly have a hot seller (on IS at least). Whether you prefer 1 image making $100/mth or 100 images making $1/mth each, makes little difference in the short term. But I think in the long run it well, because quality normally lasts longer and LCV's fade away. I acknowledge there are always examples that will break this theory but in general I think there is truth in it.
And how long before originality is copied to death? I've seen it happen with my own stuff, where a good seller suddenly finds that there a load of imitations. I can think of one where every single element in a set-up has been copied precisely by a fairly high-up iStock exclusive and lots of others have produced very similar stuff. Consequently, a one-time hot seller is now dead in the water.
That is rather annoying. It has happened to me on a few occasions and I did resolve them. I don't have a large portfolio like yours to monitor tho!
-
It's not just quality, it's also originality! If you can combine the two into one image then you almost certainly have a hot seller (on IS at least). Whether you prefer 1 image making $100/mth or 100 images making $1/mth each, makes little difference in the short term. But I think in the long run it well, because quality normally lasts longer and LCV's fade away. I acknowledge there are always examples that will break this theory but in general I think there is truth in it.
And how long before originality is copied to death? I've seen it happen with my own stuff, where a good seller suddenly finds that there a load of imitations. I can think of one where every single element in a set-up has been copied precisely by a fairly high-up iStock exclusive and lots of others have produced very similar stuff. Consequently, a one-time hot seller is now dead in the water.
That is rather annoying. It has happened to me on a few occasions and I did resolve them. I don't have a large portfolio like yours to monitor tho!
I don't try to monitor it. I stumbled across this particular stuff and I haven't bothered reporting it because I really don't believe iStock will punish one of their elite diamond exclusives to do me a favour. One day, if I am feeling in a particularly foul mood, I may expose the culprit (since there is absolutely no way it could be accidental, the others could claim accidental imitation but not this guy).
-
Yes but spending thousands on studio set-ups is totally crazy, even if you achieve nieched studio shots it will only take minutes before someone copies it and perhaps even better.
There is no way one can find a nieche within models, studio, lifestyles, business, etc, its been clobbered to death. I think the secret is to either, get-in, or find places, things, where the normal photographer cant gain entry or access. Ofcourse, this means you have to know clients, customers, businesses, etc, build up a solid client/photographer relationship based on mutual trust, shoot stock during commissioned work, etc, I mean finding a nieche, especially in the stock world, well? 6-7, years back, yes! today, almost impossible. :)
-
I think the secret is to either, get-in, or find places, things, where the normal photographer cant gain entry or access.
Yes. And while you are at it, shoot everything with exceptionally great light and styling. And if you shoot some activity, be sure the persons in the image does everything correctly so that no professionals will laugh at the image (see my post http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/) ) The images would be very difficult to copy by an average microstock shooter because they will fail in some aspect if they try to copy the image(s).
-
I think the secret is to either, get-in, or find places, things, where the normal photographer cant gain entry or access.
Yes. And while you are at it, shoot everything with exceptionally great light and styling. And if you shoot some activity, be sure the persons in the image does everything correctly so that no professionals will laugh at the image (see my post [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/[/url]) ) The images would be very difficult to copy by an average microstock shooter because they will fail in some aspect if they try to copy the image(s).
What are you dribbling about? ::) did you think I meant shooting action activity, etc. I said during commissioned work, which means you have portable light, etc, with you. Have you never been on an assignment? I am not talking about some editorial crap, you know.
I could easily reel off 20, giant names in photography, working like this. I have personally front/back-lit an entire car-production plant, with people, released and everything, some of the stuff is selling as RM.
Youre reffering to some weekend snapper with a P/S, walking into a store or something.
Besides; when I say getting-into places, it doesnt have to be indoors, I mean Cape-Caneveral is outdoors you know, as an example.
-
^ Sorry, I don't understand your outburst here. Or maybe I do (sorry for using word "you" in the beginning, I meant "everybody"). And I didn't mean combining commercial shoots with stock, I was just talking about accessing places for stock shoots.
(and yes, I do commissioned commercial shoots every week)
-
^ Sorry, I don't understand your outburst here. Or maybe I do (sorry for using word "you" in the beginning, I meant "everybody"). And I didn't mean combining commercial shoots with stock, I was just talking about accessing places for stock shoots.
(and yes, I do commissioned commercial shoots every week)
Hi! but thats exactly what I mean, combining commissioned shoots with stock, if its commercially interesting ofcourse. How else would you get unique material? and thats what I mean with building up a solid client relationship, showing you can be trusted, not using their pictures in any derrogative ways.
Example: one of my clients, is the Arlanda airport in Stockholm, I do many of their annual-reports, company profiles, etc. Can you imagine all the stock I can get there, engines, planes, personell, mechanics, jets, etc and released, etc, simply because I got in! via commissions.
I mean, anybody cant just come waltzing in on the runways, if you get my drift.
-
And how long before originality is copied to death? I've seen it happen with my own stuff, where a good seller suddenly finds that there a load of imitations. I can think of one where every single element in a set-up has been copied precisely by a fairly high-up iStock exclusive and lots of others have produced very similar stuff. Consequently, a one-time hot seller is now dead in the water.
Yep. This is the reward you get for originality in microstock. Safer to just keep churning out the same rehashed concepts. Sad to say.
-
And how long before originality is copied to death? I've seen it happen with my own stuff, where a good seller suddenly finds that there a load of imitations. I can think of one where every single element in a set-up has been copied precisely by a fairly high-up iStock exclusive and lots of others have produced very similar stuff. Consequently, a one-time hot seller is now dead in the water.
Yep. This is the reward you get for originality in microstock. Safer to just keep churning out the same rehashed concepts. Sad to say.
Yep! go get the geezer! seriously though, this is what I cant understand, why do the agencies allow it? the RMs, dont, they will send you an answer like" sorry we have already this stuff" but in micro they do.
-
And if you shoot some activity, be sure the persons in the image does everything correctly so that no professionals will laugh at the image (see my post [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/[/url]) ) The images would be very difficult to copy by an average microstock shooter because they will fail in some aspect if they try to copy the image(s).
This is funny. Years ago I actually caught a copier red-handed because they copied something in my image that was wrong! We had an electrical meter in the background of a photo of HVAC. It was not the type of meter an HVAC guy would have used. This copycat put the exact same type of meter in their photo. When I asked about it they went to great lengths to explain how the HVAC tech had used it to "check freon levels". Total BS.
Of course that was years ago and I have been obsessive about getting accuracy in situations since then. But here's the thing. I see people post stuff all the time that is factually wrong, but you know what? The stuff still sells. Most buyers don't know the difference. The average graphic designer knows nothing about the technical minutiae of whatever vocation they are designing for.
I recommend getting the technical details right for your own piece of mind, but don't expect it to translate into significantly higher sales. A pretty, fake looking picture with the details wrong will still outsell a more accurate one unless it's equally pretty.
-
And if you shoot some activity, be sure the persons in the image does everything correctly so that no professionals will laugh at the image (see my post [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getting-things-done-correctly-research-before-the-shoot/[/url]) ) The images would be very difficult to copy by an average microstock shooter because they will fail in some aspect if they try to copy the image(s).
This is funny. Years ago I actually caught a copier red-handed because they copied something in my image that was wrong! We had an electrical meter in the background of a photo of HVAC. It was not the type of meter an HVAC guy would have used. This copycat put the exact same type of meter in their photo. When I asked about it they went to great lengths to explain how the HVAC tech had used it to "check freon levels". Total BS.
Of course that was years ago and I have been obsessive about getting accuracy in situations since then. But here's the thing. I see people post stuff all the time that is factually wrong, but you know what? The stuff still sells. Most buyers don't know the difference. The average graphic designer knows nothing about the technical minutiae of whatever vocation they are designing for.
I recommend getting the technical details right for your own piece of mind, but don't expect it to translate into significantly higher sales. A pretty, fake looking picture with the details wrong will still outsell a more accurate one unless it's equally pretty. (and real life accuracy is seldom as "pretty" as a fake setup)
-
On the question of quantity or quality -I believe in both. Quantity in the number of photos i shoot- Quality in the number photos I submit.
Smiling Jack
-
Your nische might not be a photographical one, but more where you are.
If you are a clown in a circus it might provide you with certain unique shoots.
or if you work in an oilwell?
or if you are accustomed to ants or dogs:
(http://www.stolt.dk/images/stock/golden%20retriever%206.jpg)
-
And just how big is the demand for circus shots on microstock?
-
What are you trying to prove?
I just point out some mechanisms.
If you are a clown, then photograph your circus.
if you are a vampire, then the tombstone.
If you are a vet, the animals...
How difficult can it be?
-
Your nische might not be a photographical one, but more where you are.
If you are a clown in a circus it might provide you with certain unique shoots.
or if you work in an oilwell?
or if you are accustomed to ants or dogs:
([url]http://www.stolt.dk/images/stock/golden%20retriever%206.jpg[/url])
Lovely portrait! nice pose, etc.
-
On the question of quantity or quality -I believe in both. Quantity in the number of photos i shoot- Quality in the number photos I submit.
Smiling Jack
No matter how we twist and turn the word quality, micro, is a numbers game, lets not forget that.
-
But the post really has nothing to do with quality, it has to do with sales potential....
This would be my answer to the debate of quantity vs quality. The winner is neither. The winner is sales potential. Second place is quantity. Third place is quality.
Not that quality is unimportant. But for the most part the images you find on MS must have technical quality to make it online. Oh, you're talking about "artistic or aesthetic quality"? Then I'd put quality down around fifth or sixth.
Fact is, you can have a high "quantity" of stuff people don't want... or you can have a high "quality" of stuff people don't want.... and you're dead in the water. Quality vs quantity is moot. First find out what topics sell well, are underserved, and you can offer a unique take on. Then focus on doing LOTS of those. Then worry about how to do them better and better.
But you say, "Of course I only focus on subjects with high demand, that's a given!" Are you really? Are your sales continually growing? RPI continually rising? If not, take a long hard look at whether you're really meeting a demand that hasn't already been served many times over and see if you can forge new ground in hot topics your competition hasn't already uncovered. Try a bunch of new topics, and when you find some that tap into a real hunger among buyers, do LOTS on that subject or theme. Don't repeat yourself, or you'll just cannibalize your own sales... find creative ways to tackle the general subject in a number of ways. But get a lot up there while you're under the radar of other contributors. Quality doesn't even factor in to this strategy. Of course you'll do the best you can, but since you'll have little competition, it won't be a big factor in the buyer's decision.
-
You know, I'm not really a dog person... and I'm pretty dismissive of any dog shots I've seen in microstock, but that is a beauty.
It certainly makes sense to me that a person in an uncommon area of work will have access to scenarios, objects, perspectives, specialist knowledge etc. that the rest of us won't - and that such access/knowledge will provide them with a particular niche that would be very difficult for others to copy.
-
You know, I'm not really a dog person... and I'm pretty dismissive of any dog shots I've seen in microstock, but that is a beauty.
It certainly makes sense to me that a person in an uncommon area of work will have access to scenarios, objects, perspectives, specialist knowledge etc. that the rest of us won't - and that such access/knowledge will provide them with a particular niche that would be very difficult for others to copy.
Exactly! you somehow worded it better then I did and thats how many of the top RM,RF and micro shooters work it. Especially in the RM, where the revenue is so much more.
-
+ the upload process = much more annoying...
-
I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required. That said - if you do have knowledge and or access to something specific you have the potential to get good images a lot easier than others without that knowledge / access do. That works for the hobbyist, but someone who wants to do stock full time needs more.
Depending on how you define quality and quantity, it could go either way. If you define quality by microstock sales then of course quality wins. I'd rather have the sales from all but someone's top selling (highest quality?) image than just the top seller though - it just depends where you make the cut.
Of course thousands of images that don't sell are useless - especially compared to a few images that sell well.
-
why donīt everybody continue doing whatever they are doing and drop this useless topic or anybody is here to help competition?
-
I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required.
The top selling "House Sparrow" picture on iStock - by a long chalk - is actually a Tree Sparrow. ::) The buyers aren't as discerning as some of us may like to think.
-
I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required.
You are right. But I personally wouldn't spend time shooting images that are "wrong", it just doesn't make sense because everything could be done "correctly" just by asking some specialist or by googling around.
We also don't know if a portion of buyers have noticed that the rock climbing pictures look "wrong" and they have searched for better ones, maybe even contacting a macrocstock site or some rock climbing photographer to get the needed images. We just don't know it. We only know that many of the buyers are totally clueless :)
-
We only know that many of the buyers are totally clueless :)
One more reason to start charging them more :)
-
Dont underestimate the customers.
I frequently get sales from the latin names in my nature photos.
Fx today I sold 2 Catocala fraxini on SS.
keyword presision adds to the quality and usability of an image.
ball bearings are not just ball bearings.
-
I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required.
You are right. But I personally wouldn't spend time shooting images that are "wrong", it just doesn't make sense because everything could be done "correctly" just by asking some specialist or by googling around.
We also don't know if a portion of buyers have noticed that the rock climbing pictures look "wrong" and they have searched for better ones, maybe even contacting a macrocstock site or some rock climbing photographer to get the needed images. We just don't know it. We only know that many of the buyers are totally clueless :)
The problem comes if, for example, a designer gets given a brief by a holiday agency to prepare a full page advert for Mountain Climber magazine. Neither the designer nor the holiday company management in London know the first thing about climbing, so they happily slap the advert in the mag .... and become a standing joke among their entire potential customer base.
-
I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required.
You are right. But I personally wouldn't spend time shooting images that are "wrong", it just doesn't make sense because everything could be done "correctly" just by asking some specialist or by googling around.
We also don't know if a portion of buyers have noticed that the rock climbing pictures look "wrong" and they have searched for better ones, maybe even contacting a macrocstock site or some rock climbing photographer to get the needed images. We just don't know it. We only know that many of the buyers are totally clueless :)
The problem comes if, for example, a designer gets given a brief by a holiday agency to prepare a full page advert for Mountain Climber magazine. Neither the designer nor the holiday company management in London know the first thing about climbing, so they happily slap the advert in the mag .... and become a standing joke among their entire potential customer base.
I've told before about the Safari company which "knows Africa like the back of our hand", but whose expensively-produced brochure featured Asian One-horned Rhinos. Lost our custom, which would have been several thousand pounds about ten years ago, and of course any future business. (I'm not sure they're still in business, to be honest.)
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series.
Congratulations, to be honest though no matter how desperate I was for sales I wouldn't have had my photo taken in that situation let alone upload them :P
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Not sure how that relates to quality....if you aren't competing against anything else remotely similar, then it simply means it's the only option. ;)
In that instance - you need to change your phrase to "Monopoly wins over and over and over again!"
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Not sure how that relates to quality....if you aren't competing against anything else remotely similar, then it simply means it's the only option. ;)
In that instance - you need to change your phrase to "Monopoly wins over and over and over again!"
Not really, no point (well no commercial point) in having unique images that nobody is looking for (believe me, I have tons of those) - the secret is to have rare subjects that people are looking for ;D Again though, nothing to do with quality as such.
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Not sure how that relates to quality....if you aren't competing against anything else remotely similar, then it simply means it's the only option. ;)
In that instance - you need to change your phrase to "Monopoly wins over and over and over again!"
Oh come on!! There's always a ton of images that compete against yours, finding a niche means there's a lot less of competition. Lack of competition exists in certain areas for a reason; because no one needs it, therefor buys it.
It relates to quality, because I took my time to carefully execute each and every photo and not just snap away to get a ton of sheatty images. They stand out, that's why they sell ;)
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series.
Congratulations, to be honest though no matter how desperate I was for sales I wouldn't have had my photo taken in that situation let alone upload them :P
Sry, but I don't get what you're trying to say
-
I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required.
You are right. But I personally wouldn't spend time shooting images that are "wrong", it just doesn't make sense because everything could be done "correctly" just by asking some specialist or by googling around.
We also don't know if a portion of buyers have noticed that the rock climbing pictures look "wrong" and they have searched for better ones, maybe even contacting a macrocstock site or some rock climbing photographer to get the needed images. We just don't know it. We only know that many of the buyers are totally clueless :)
About six months ago I designed a trade show exhibit for a tech company. They wanted a rock or ice climber for a metaphor concept. I sent them to iStock and they said the selection was pathetic and fake. They headed to Corbis and Getty RF and RM and bought from Getty RM. Price was not a concern.
Point - marketing managers and CEOs are not stupid. There are many more pragmatic and shrewd buyers out there than some here assume. Most of my clients fall into this group when it comes to images used in marketing.
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Splendid old chap! now would you be so kind as to inform us what kind of a nieche you have found. Please. We thank you! and wait in anticipation. :)
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Splendid old chap! now would you be so kind as to inform us what kind of a nieche you have found. Please. We thank you! and wait in anticipation. :)
I hit one of those niches a while back. It was an istock search generated niche called "fish and chips". It just happened that at one of the moments when their search went crazy I uploaded a "fish and chips" pic, that became one of only about 30 that turned up in the search for that term (and 25 of them were spam rather than true "fish and chips"). It rapidly moved to the top of my personal "best match" and the sales that search generated put it into the first page of the "fish" search (at one time into the best five for "fish"). I've had hundreds of sales for a respectable but not incredible image.
That's what a "niche" is these days. A search glitch.
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Splendid old chap! now would you be so kind as to inform us what kind of a nieche you have found. Please. We thank you! and wait in anticipation. :)
Well you already said it last time, what brings in serious cash ;)
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Splendid old chap! now would you be so kind as to inform us what kind of a nieche you have found. Please. We thank you! and wait in anticipation. :)
I hit one of those niches a while back. It was an istock search generated niche called "fish and chips". It just happened that at one of the moments when their search went crazy I uploaded a "fish and chips" pic, that became one of only about 30 that turned up in the search for that term (and 25 of them were spam rather than true "fish and chips"). It rapidly moved to the top of my personal "best match" and the sales that search generated put it into the first page of the "fish" search (at one time into the best five for "fish"). I've had hundreds of sales for a respectable but not incredible image.
That's what a "niche" is these days. A search glitch.
Wow, if a glitch helped me, it would be like hitting the lottery! ;D (since there's almost 10 images and all sell) Well for me anyway ;)
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. Recently uploaded series of less than 10 photos. Quality wins over and over and over again!
Splendid old chap! now would you be so kind as to inform us what kind of a nieche you have found. Please. We thank you! and wait in anticipation. :)
I hit one of those niches a while back. It was an istock search generated niche called "fish and chips". It just happened that at one of the moments when their search went crazy I uploaded a "fish and chips" pic, that became one of only about 30 that turned up in the search for that term (and 25 of them were spam rather than true "fish and chips"). It rapidly moved to the top of my personal "best match" and the sales that search generated put it into the first page of the "fish" search (at one time into the best five for "fish"). I've had hundreds of sales for a respectable but not incredible image.
That's what a "niche" is these days. A search glitch.
Wow, if a glitch helped me, it would be like hitting the lottery! ;D (since there's almost 10 images and all sell) Well for me anyway ;)
I'm sorry, I thought it was an accident rather than an appropriate expression of your inate brilliance. I stand corrected.
-
Seriously, the "fish and chips" glitch showed me just how much the cheats who gamed the rating system a few years back must have profited from their actions and continued to profit for a very, very long time after it was stopped. Not everyone with a big iStock canister must have got it through fair dealing.
-
Seriously, the "fish and chips" glitch showed me just how much the cheats who gamed the rating system a few years back must have profited from their actions and continued to profit for a very, very long time after it was stopped. Not everyone with a big iStock canister must have got it through fair dealing.
Cheats? Would you mind dropping another line or 2, this is interesting :)
-
A few years back people discovered that by giving each other "5" ratings on istock they propelled each other's images to the top of the search, where buyer lethargy kept the images indefinitely. When iStock caught on, it removed the public rating system from the search algorithm and it may also have cancelled the accounts of a handful of the worst culprits. But once an image is given real momentum it remains locked in to the top of the search for a long, long time, with buyers picking it up just because it is on the first seach page, and so keeping it there.
Just as a number of us are top contributers for not much better reason that that we have been pushing images through for eight years, so there are images that remain popular because their search ranking was falsely inflated and have been stuck high in searches for years.
-
Wow, now I'm really sorry I didn't start back in 06 when a few ppl were trying to convince me to start doing it (one is a 130K+ diamond now, the other is at around 90k). If I had gambled the system, I'd probably be a diamond now. Well most definitely. Starting in 2010 really makes you struggling and no one will ever get to 1 mil DLs at IS if he's going to start doing MS today. Even Yuri would need at least 15 years to get to current numbers (now that photos don't cost 1-4$ anymore, the volume is a LOT lower). But I don't think there will still be MS in 15 years, well not in this current form, I'm sure quality will start falling if there are going to be more cuts and no price rises. With libraries getting bigger and bigger you really need great stuff to stick out in the searches, but that usually costs a lot to produce. So lower earnings, higher expenses will bring MS to where it was when it started, a place for amateurs to sell their images, mostly really poorly executed.
-
A few years back people discovered that by giving each other "5" ratings on istock they propelled each other's images to the top of the search, where buyer lethargy kept the images indefinitely. When iStock caught on, it removed the public rating system from the search algorithm and it may also have cancelled the accounts of a handful of the worst culprits. But once an image is given real momentum it remains locked in to the top of the search for a long, long time, with buyers picking it up just because it is on the first seach page, and so keeping it there.
Just as a number of us are top contributers for not much better reason that that we have been pushing images through for eight years, so there are images that remain popular because their search ranking was falsely inflated and have been stuck high in searches for years.
Yeah I remember this incident well, it was a small gang rating each other, later they got booted out, accounts closed.
-
Yeah I remember this incident well, it was a small gang rating each other, later they got booted out, accounts closed.
One small gang? All booted? Really? My impression was that it was commonplace and most offenders were overlooked to avoid too much embarrassment. Maybe some others from that time could clarify things.
-
A few years back people discovered that by giving each other "5" ratings on istock they propelled each other's images to the top of the search, where buyer lethargy kept the images indefinitely. When iStock caught on, it removed the public rating system from the search algorithm and it may also have cancelled the accounts of a handful of the worst culprits. But once an image is given real momentum it remains locked in to the top of the search for a long, long time, with buyers picking it up just because it is on the first seach page, and so keeping it there.
Just as a number of us are top contributers for not much better reason that that we have been pushing images through for eight years, so there are images that remain popular because their search ranking was falsely inflated and have been stuck high in searches for years.
Yeah I remember this incident well, it was a small gang rating each other, later they got booted out, accounts closed.
I seem to recall there were groups that bought each other's images when they first appeared - this was after the user ratings were removed from the search but when initial sales were key. I think eventually they got a slap on the wrist - sort of like their big campaign against spam - a lot of talk and not much action. I think that IS has always paid out a higher percentage of payments to a fairly small number of producers and in general IS has always been a bit of a positive feedback system (like many MS sites). I had a few images that started looking promising but got hit by a best match switch and that was the end of them.
-
A few years back people discovered that by giving each other "5" ratings on istock they propelled each other's images to the top of the search, where buyer lethargy kept the images indefinitely. When iStock caught on, it removed the public rating system from the search algorithm and it may also have cancelled the accounts of a handful of the worst culprits. But once an image is given real momentum it remains locked in to the top of the search for a long, long time, with buyers picking it up just because it is on the first seach page, and so keeping it there.
Just as a number of us are top contributers for not much better reason that that we have been pushing images through for eight years, so there are images that remain popular because their search ranking was falsely inflated and have been stuck high in searches for years.
Yeah I remember this incident well, it was a small gang rating each other, later they got booted out, accounts closed.
I seem to recall there were groups that bought each other's images when they first appeared - this was after the user ratings were removed from the search but when initial sales were key. I think eventually they got a slap on the wrist - sort of like their big campaign against spam - a lot of talk and not much action. I think that IS has always paid out a higher percentage of payments to a fairly small number of producers and in general IS has always been a bit of a positive feedback system (like many MS sites). I had a few images that started looking promising but got hit by a best match switch and that was the end of them.
Yes, that's right. I had forgotten the details.
-
I seem to recall there were groups that bought each other's images when they first appeared - this was after the user ratings were removed from the search but when initial sales were key. I think eventually they got a slap on the wrist - sort of like their big campaign against spam - a lot of talk and not much action. I think that IS has always paid out a higher percentage of payments to a fairly small number of producers and in general IS has always been a bit of a positive feedback system (like many MS sites). I had a few images that started looking promising but got hit by a best match switch and that was the end of them.
I can't see this working/paying out unless you were already getting 40% royalties. You had to sell 2,5 more after buying the photos just to break even. But then again, if you get on top, you probably earn up to 10x more. It would be a risky business for indies (leaving aside you could be banned of course)
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series.
Congratulations, to be honest though no matter how desperate I was for sales I wouldn't have had my photo taken in that situation let alone upload them :P
Sry, but I don't get what you're trying to say
"Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. "
Sorry my mistake I thought that was the title of your series :o
-
That's what a "niche" is these days. A search glitch.
Yes, that is highly plausible. Something that puzzles me is often after having an image/illustration accepted, it receives a few views within minutes/hours. These often go on to be good sellers. The ones that get no views have less chance of being a good seller.
Are the inspectors recognizing a potential good seller and forwarding these links to their friends (contributors) before they are available to be viewed by everyone (I wonder)?
-
I can't see this working/paying out unless you were already getting 40% royalties. You had to sell 2,5 more after buying the photos just to break even. But then again, if you get on top, you probably earn up to 10x more. It would be a risky business for indies (leaving aside you could be banned of course)
It worked because you could buy an XS and the effect on the search was the same as buying an XXL. And it only took one sale to keep you up in the top couple of pages of the search for quite some time, by which time you had probably picked up a real sale. Positive feedback mechanism.
-
Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series.
Congratulations, to be honest though no matter how desperate I was for sales I wouldn't have had my photo taken in that situation let alone upload them :P
Sry, but I don't get what you're trying to say
"Fu*k me!!! I found a niche at IS, more than half of my sales in the last couple of days are coming from that series. "
Sorry my mistake I thought that was the title of your series :o
Bwahahaha, ur crazy! ;D
P.S. Ur obviously not a Brit (although you could be and you just couldn't help yourself). But ever since I've started watching Ramsay's kitchen nightmares and An idiot abroad, I've started using these Brit cuss words/expressions (besides that one, F*cking hell). The way they say it, it just gets under your skin. And both shows are uncensored, they're just cursing all the time. Fun to watch, topped with English humour, priceless. There's a US version of Ramsay's show, but it sucks, it's censored and they want to turn it into a Jerry Springer kind of show, adding drama, there's always a dramatic moment when a fight starts, then commercial break and then they show that dramatic moment all over again and it's 45 s or so long. And there were 2 moments/commercial breaks like that in the first episode. I was done with it right away.