Author Topic: Low tier Agencies - dilema! (Read 7889 times)

lagereek · « **on:** May 07, 2011, 02:28 »

Been doing and testing a few of the agencies in the low tier and I am amazed with the quality, the hi-tech and layouts of some of them and frankly one wonders WHY they are in the low-tier in the first place.

As usual what lets them down is their Search-engine. Many of them are "old fashioned" showing what the top agencies promoted some three, four years back, just too much generic stuff and isolations-on-white, etc and they are doing this on the first, two, three pages! where instead you should flaunt originals, variety and some of the best youve got.
If you take Zoonar and Cutcaster for example, brillant interfaces, hi quality, etc, but far, far too many generics and isolations on premiere pages. I did a search in my own fields, Typed "oil-industry" and up comes ofcourse the stereotyped shot of industry shot with a telephoto and sunset, which there are millions of. Todays buyer ar more aware, they are not interested in distant industry anymore, they want pics of whats going on inside the industry and preferably with workers. Typically, all my really big sellers at IS, with blue flames and at SS, DT and FT, are of Engineers working inside industry. Also did a search on "tools" good grief! all isolations-on-white, etc.
Todays buyers, designers and with the latest tools in PS, etc, prefer to isolate and crop pics thermselves and they do a lot better job and quicker then any photographer, its their job.

I do feel that if they dont "modernise" their searches a bit more, well? they might never move from the low-tier at all.

This is in no way meant to critize but its a pitty to see really well run agencies, just to find that the actual search-mechanism, shall we say, is a bit out of date.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2011, 02:36 »

I think there's also a problem of image quality at some low tier, which makes the search engine optimisation more difficult. Some of them - understandably, as they try to build a collection - accepted pretty much everything, and some still do. I am not asking for more random rejections (crestock way) anyway.

lagereek · « **Reply #2 on:** May 07, 2011, 03:10 »

yes there are, but just have a look at our Dans Warmpicture.com, GL, Zoonar, even the new Stockfresh, great quality, every bit as good as the big ones and THATS why its important that the search actually show this, or else whats the point.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** May 07, 2011, 03:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 07, 2011, 02:28

Been doing and testing a few of the agencies in the low tier and I am amazed with the quality, the hi-tech and layouts of some of them and frankly one wonders WHY they are in the low-tier in the first place.

Because their marketing campaign is based on the theory of "if we build it they will come".

Quote from: lagereek on May 07, 2011, 02:28

Todays buyers, designers and with the latest tools in PS, etc, prefer to isolate and crop pics thermselves and they do a lot better job and quicker then any photographer, its their job.

I know you've got a downer about isolated things but actually the statistics show that isolated subjects are the back bone of the microstock industry, and despite what you think 'todays buyers & designers' most likely haven't got a clue how to isolate subjects themselves, and I've seen many many hashed attempts to isolate something done by so called 'designers', anybody with a laptop can set up as a website builder and hey presto overnight they've suddenly become a designer! Examine any of the top microstockers with a varied portfolio of isolated and non-isolated subjects and you'll find the isolated far out sell the others.

Your niche might be the oil industry but compared to what sells in vast quantity on microstock sites your niche is a tiny fraction, they promote what sells the most.

lagereek · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2011, 05:21 »

Hi!

Sure I know and your right, its one of the backbones of this industry BUT on a search-engines premiere pages you also have to impress, show variety, like Orson-Wells, once said: " keep the interest going and amaze" I mean you cant really say, isolations, amaze? but they are the bread and butter, no doubt.

I remember Tony-Stone and Simon, when we trying to, in those days to just make large, glossy catalouges, it was imperative to show that we had photographers that actually could get in everywhere, even into NASA, space-centers and other really so called " closed shops" and these pics sold like mad ofcourse.

I dont expect my oil, gas, fuel, nuclear, technology, engineering shots to get more coverage then any other but in one search I found the oil-industry mixed up with olive-oil being poured over pasta and lasagne and then it gets a bit much.

lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2011, 11:21 »

Quote from: RT on May 07, 2011, 03:30

Quote from: lagereek on May 07, 2011, 02:28
Been doing and testing a few of the agencies in the low tier and I am amazed with the quality, the hi-tech and layouts of some of them and frankly one wonders WHY they are in the low-tier in the first place.

Because their marketing campaign is based on the theory of "if we build it they will come".

Quote from: lagereek on May 07, 2011, 02:28
Todays buyers, designers and with the latest tools in PS, etc, prefer to isolate and crop pics thermselves and they do a lot better job and quicker then any photographer, its their job.

I know you've got a downer about isolated things but actually the statistics show that isolated subjects are the back bone of the microstock industry, and despite what you think 'todays buyers & designers' most likely haven't got a clue how to isolate subjects themselves, and I've seen many many hashed attempts to isolate something done by so called 'designers', anybody with a laptop can set up as a website builder and hey presto overnight they've suddenly become a designer! Examine any of the top microstockers with a varied portfolio of isolated and non-isolated subjects and you'll find the isolated far out sell the others.

Your niche might be the oil industry but compared to what sells in vast quantity on microstock sites your niche is a tiny fraction, they promote what sells the most.

No, no, not a downer at all. In dayrate commercial photography I do lots of isolations myself, for clients, even isolations of planes, trucks, etc. Its not that, its when you see full pages with them, page after page, not exactly a variety? is it? I mean then you should promote yourself as a designer-agency, well almost.

best.

pancaketom · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2011, 11:44 »

It would be interesting if the sites could come up with a few more search methods - like "artsy", "simple", "insider access", etc. etc. It would be a real pain in the butt to set them up though. Seeing what shows up in the top of the searches for a subject you are familiar with is often pretty painful. That doesn't even touch the spam - on purpose or otherwise. IS tried to fix a lot of these problems w/ the CV etc, but we all know how that worked out.

I am guessing most people just search on the best match and with a keyword or 2 and if they don't see what they want in the first few pages then they have to get more creative. Simple and isolated is often what they are looking for.

lagereek · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2011, 11:48 »

Thats right! best-match or relevance. I bet most buyers dont even know the existance of the others such as most-popular, age, etc. Thats why a best match can be a total killer.

louoates · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2011, 15:48 »

Whatever the reasons they are low earners, what's the point? They'll either get it right or they'll be gone. Either way I wouldn't upload to or waste any time on any of them.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2011, 17:13 »

If I knew enough to respond to some of the recent queries about microstock, I'd be a headman instead of a tail man. :-)

Noooooooo... Come to think of it: I'm just a natural-born "tail man."

lagereek · « **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2011, 08:00 »

Quote from: louoates on May 07, 2011, 15:48

Whatever the reasons they are low earners, what's the point? They'll either get it right or they'll be gone. Either way I wouldn't upload to or waste any time on any of them.

Possibly because they dont have the traffic, not enough buyers. Its a pity because you can tell that many have really worked hard to get a nice and well run site.

corareed · « **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2011, 10:33 »

Langareek, as for Cutcaster, we have a very vigorous search engine. The way most search engines work is they look for the words you search, then try to drill down similar words from there. (Ours is quite a bit more complex, but you get the idea). Our advanced search functions really drills down to specifics. We ( I ) also do a ton of editing on keywords, and do prune where necessary.

You chose to search for a topic that we don't have many images for. You must remember we are very new, and still small. Of course, a site with 15 million images are going to have more content in niche topics, like the oil industry. Your search is evidence that we need MORE of those images, offering you an opportunity to be the pictures seen first in that category. Cutcaster is picking up speed, and still growing our relatively small collection. We have spent a lot of time on making sure our users are indexed on google (not an easy task), we talk to clients every day, and actively recruit the best photographers around.

As far as isolations go, people do buy them. They are easy to use. If you look at this page: http://cutcaster.com/browse/ , you will find a lot more "arty" and interesting, among the popular and common. I personally edit all of our lightboxes, and can attest to the saleability of images of this quality. (The keywords at the left are also edited collections) I know low earners can be frustrating. But I think you would be surprised at the work the work that goes on behind scenes.

I can assure you, "If you build it they will come," is not our concept. If it is, then we are working too hard!!!!

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2011, 10:47 »

If the upload process is fast and easy and % is fair (as on CutCaster) why not uploading?
Without expecting too much too soon, but in the long run it's better to have our port at many sites, given how fast this industry is changing.

lagereek · « **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:09 »

Quote from: corareed on May 09, 2011, 10:33

Langareek, as for Cutcaster, we have a very vigorous search engine. The way most search engines work is they look for the words you search, then try to drill down similar words from there. (Ours is quite a bit more complex, but you get the idea). Our advanced search functions really drills down to specifics. We ( I ) also do a ton of editing on keywords, and do prune where necessary.

You chose to search for a topic that we don't have many images for. You must remember we are very new, and still small. Of course, a site with 15 million images are going to have more content in niche topics, like the oil industry. Your search is evidence that we need MORE of those images, offering you an opportunity to be the pictures seen first in that category. Cutcaster is picking up speed, and still growing our relatively small collection. We have spent a lot of time on making sure our users are indexed on google (not an easy task), we talk to clients every day, and actively recruit the best photographers around.

As far as isolations go, people do buy them. They are easy to use. If you look at this page: http://cutcaster.com/browse/ , you will find a lot more "arty" and interesting, among the popular and common. I personally edit all of our lightboxes, and can attest to the saleability of images of this quality. (The keywords at the left are also edited collections) I know low earners can be frustrating. But I think you would be surprised at the work the work that goes on behind scenes.

I can assure you, "If you build it they will come," is not our concept. If it is, then we are working too hard!!!!

Hi Cora!

Yep! your right! I like Cutcaster and I realize you need more industrials and I be glad to supply them, no problem. You do have quick and easy uploading, quick editing and thats great. The interface is IMO, one of the best, nice and clean and kept simple.
Im sure You will pretty soon reap the rewards.

best. Christian

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2011, 01:56 »

I like Cutcaster too. But they simply reject most of what I send them. When they launched the new site this year, I started to upload to them again and maybe the reviewers were in good mood as they were accepting my images, but since then it is an extremely high rejection rate for me.

I can't support sites if I can't get my images online with them. Believe me, I'm not uploading for my own benefit here, I actually would like Cutcaster to make it. Why would I spend time uploading to a site which hasn't given me a sale since 2009, I know I have a small port. but it's not for the want of trying. A lot of my rejected images, especially the editorial ones are sitting on ss, getting sales everyday.

Anyway, rant over.

lagereek · « **Reply #15 on:** May 10, 2011, 03:40 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on May 10, 2011, 01:56

I like Cutcaster too. But they simply reject most of what I send them. When they launched the new site this year, I started to upload to them again and maybe the reviewers were in good mood as they were accepting my images, but since then it is an extremely high rejection rate for me.

I can't support sites if I can't get my images online with them. Believe me, I'm not uploading for my own benefit here, I actually would like Cutcaster to make it. Why would I spend time uploading to a site which hasn't given me a sale since 2009, I know I have a small port. but it's not for the want of trying. A lot of my rejected images, especially the editorial ones are sitting on Shutterstock, getting sales everyday.

Anyway, rant over.

Ranting old woman!

yeah you got to remember though, its pointless agencies are accepting images if theyre not going to sell or if the subject-matter doesnt fit the bill. In early years every agency accpeted on thechnical merit which is rubbish, hence the stock market is so full of irrelevant material its unbelieavable.
Many agencies are tightening up. I agree with that.

so try again! worst that can happen is a reject and, well--------------- we are all used to that.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2011, 14:49 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 10, 2011, 03:40

Quote from: Microstock Posts on May 10, 2011, 01:56
I like Cutcaster too. But they simply reject most of what I send them. When they launched the new site this year, I started to upload to them again and maybe the reviewers were in good mood as they were accepting my images, but since then it is an extremely high rejection rate for me.

I can't support sites if I can't get my images online with them. Believe me, I'm not uploading for my own benefit here, I actually would like Cutcaster to make it. Why would I spend time uploading to a site which hasn't given me a sale since 2009, I know I have a small port. but it's not for the want of trying. A lot of my rejected images, especially the editorial ones are sitting on Shutterstock, getting sales everyday.

Anyway, rant over.

Ranting old woman! yeah you got to remember though, its pointless agencies are accepting images if theyre not going to sell or if the subject-matter doesnt fit the bill. In early years every agency accpeted on thechnical merit which is rubbish, hence the stock market is so full of irrelevant material its unbelieavable.
Many agencies are tightening up. I agree with that.

so try again! worst that can happen is a reject and, well--------------- we are all used to that.

"its pointless agencies are accepting images if theyre not going to sell or if the subject-matter doesnt fit the bill."

I love it when newer agencies portray that they are different to the other agencies. They probably know that they will never catch up to agencies which currently have 10 to 15 million images and have to go for 'our agency is smaller but better' line. I am a very small buyer myself, 2-5 images a month and I know I need variety. I used to be able to find what I wanted, at least most of the time on Polylooks and I can easily find what I want on Deposit photos. The choice is very limited on Cutcaster, so as a buyer why would I go there. As a seller, I'm confused at the high rejection rate, when I personally think they need images. Anyway, so long as my photos continue to fit the bill at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and 123rf, I'm not that bothered, I just find it strange.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Low tier Agencies - dilema! (Read 7889 times)

lagereek

microstockphoto.co.uk

lagereek

RT

lagereek

lagereek

pancaketom

lagereek

louoates

WarrenPrice

lagereek

corareed

microstockphoto.co.uk

lagereek

Microstock Posts

lagereek

Microstock Posts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors