pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: What's worse, cutting commissions or (almost) 100% rejections?  (Read 8921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Slovenian

« on: August 18, 2011, 18:36 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)


nruboc

« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2011, 18:51 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.

Slovenian

« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2011, 18:54 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.

It wouldn't hurt to point that out in one of those threads. If you check them, at least when it comes to August posts, you can only find those who're reporting rejections on a big scale, mostly for no apparent reason

« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2011, 19:23 »
0
I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.
+1 Approval rate hasn't changed for me either, so I can't comment.

All I could assume is that SS is raising the bar in terms of selecting specific topics and quality features. Absolutely their prerogative. Sales are good (knock on wood).

red

« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2011, 19:41 »
0
Rejections - do you want the sites to accept everything that is technically sound? If so, they must also delete all old images that are not. Who will determine that? If they do that and delete some of your images will you be mad (not you specifically)?

Today, rejections at any site are a consequence of the "information overload" that is in place at those sites. Millions of images are available. Microstock has fallen prey to the times. More TV channels, more emails, more social networking, more enewsletters, more shopping sites, instant access via smartphones (voice and web) - more "multi-tasking" in general. More, more, more. It's unsustainable.

Designers these days have no time to look at every image, they are switching digital tasks constantly. Microstock provides too much irrelevant information -  too many images, and the same images at every site. Those designers loyal to any particular site are tired of seeing the same images each time they log on. When they try a new site they see the same images. They want new, better, one-of-a-kind images and want the old tired images gone.

Everyone thinks their rejections are unwarranted. Yes, in the old days you would look through 100 images and not find anything but today you look through thousands and are still lucky to find what you are looking for. As a buyer I want simple, fast and new, not more choices of images shot at the same angle by different photogs. I can usually find what I need in the first 50 images if they are curated well. And, yes, newer images may not be better but who can ultimately decide what will sell and what will not?

Until an agency can come up with some way to weed out the drek (and there is a lot at all the sites) and only accept really great, technically correct, simple, well-lit images (again, who will decide - I know I couldn't?) nothing will change. The sites have to start being more selective just to slow down the flow of images and find some way to stand out.

I think getting rid of non-sellers after a certain time period and not accepting images from new contributors just to reel them in and never have to pay them for the few saleable images they might provide would be a good way to go. I'm not saying not to accept all new people, but take time to assess their potential. You can usually tell if they will be successful by looking at a dozen of their images before letting them join. I don't want to sound elitist but the days of accepting anyone should be over. When the level of artistry and technical expertise goes up perhaps prices will follow (yeah, I doubt it).

OK, done ranting. I've got to go check my stats on the image sites, read the latest camera reviews, shop for a new cellphone (I always buy unlocked), check out foxnews.com for the latest (yes, I'm one of those), deduce the pros and cons of a possible new ebook reader, do some online research for a bigger monitor, stream my Netflix movie and send an email to my 83-year old mother. I'd better start the coffeepot, I'll be up late

Batman

« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2011, 20:43 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.

It wouldn't hurt to point that out in one of those threads. If you check them, at least when it comes to August posts, you can only find those who're reporting rejections on a big scale, mostly for no apparent reason

If they delete your old photo to make room for my new upload I'd be happy. Is that what you want.

helix7

« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2011, 22:09 »
0

Most folks are not having these large-scale rejection problems at SS.

« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2011, 22:37 »
0
I'm rarely uploading anything this year mainly due to many of the problems complained about lately. Plus being basically lazy. But I must point out that my last six uploads were rejected by SS for reasons that left me scratching my head in disbelief. I've been accepted at SS at a 90+ rate and had usually agreed with the rejections even though most were accepted at IS and elsewhere.
One was a very good shot of a new Firestone Dealership under editorial that was rejected for being not newsworthy. I thought that odd because none of the other images on SS with the "Firestone" keyword were newsworthy by any stretch. My believe was that editorial images were used to illustrate stories that might relate to the companies involved such as showing one of their storefronts and signs. I didn't think it had to be THAT specific store, but that company in general.

???

nruboc

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2011, 01:12 »
0
I gotta remember to stop responding to these threads by "Anonymous" posters. For all I know the Original Poster is uploading all frickin Flower shots. Why don't you show us who you are so we can formulate an opinion on why you are getting so many rejects? Otherwise this thread is completely pointless.

lagereek

« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2011, 01:57 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Slovenian

« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2011, 02:57 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Indeed, I totally agree. And with many others sharing this opinion. But rejecting whole batches for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.", which reason by itself is not specific enough, it could be one of 3 things. How is it possible not only, I'm getting 100% acceptance from my last 2 batches at all other sites (Big 4&123RF, no BS agencies) and how's it possible I had a roughly 90% acceptance rate for at least 6 months prior to that, I didn't hit my head really hard and all over sudden forget what it takes for a photo to be accepted and be able to assess with 90% certainty that the photo is suitable (It really was 99%, but I always sent borderline images as well or even those I though were technically not good enough, but the concept, composition etc was, so the percentage dropped to 90% because of that). As far as anonymity goes, I guess some of you will just have to get my word on this, although 90% acceptance rate should be reason enough to believe me. Or not, it's your decision ;) .

What's more important most of you're more focused on the rejections and reasons behind it, but I was asking something completely different in the OP. So what's worse, cuts or not being able to get sheat online anymore (imagine you can't, if you still can;)

lagereek

« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2011, 03:31 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Indeed, I totally agree. And with many others sharing this opinion. But rejecting whole batches for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.", which reason by itself is not specific enough, it could be one of 3 things. How is it possible not only, I'm getting 100% acceptance from my last 2 batches at all other sites (Big 4&123RF, no BS agencies) and how's it possible I had a roughly 90% acceptance rate for at least 6 months prior to that, I didn't hit my head really hard and all over sudden forget what it takes for a photo to be accepted and be able to assess with 90% certainty that the photo is suitable (It really was 99%, but I always sent borderline images as well or even those I though were technically not good enough, but the concept, composition etc was, so the percentage dropped to 90% because of that). As far as anonymity goes, I guess some of you will just have to get my word on this, although 90% acceptance rate should be reason enough to believe me. Or not, it's your decision ;) .

What's more important most of you're more focused on the rejections and reasons behind it, but I was asking something completely different in the OP. So what's worse, cuts or not being able to get sheat online anymore (imagine you can't, if you still can;)


Hi!

Well I know this much. SS dont like poor commercial value, thats for sure, now if you have 99% acceptance at the others, why not try SS again but with a differant approach, differant subject-matter perhaps?

What do you photograph?  subject matters, I mean?

best.

« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2011, 03:45 »
0
I rarely get anything rejected from SS either so it doesn't really matter to me.

Slovenian

« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2011, 03:46 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Indeed, I totally agree. And with many others sharing this opinion. But rejecting whole batches for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.", which reason by itself is not specific enough, it could be one of 3 things. How is it possible not only, I'm getting 100% acceptance from my last 2 batches at all other sites (Big 4&123RF, no BS agencies) and how's it possible I had a roughly 90% acceptance rate for at least 6 months prior to that, I didn't hit my head really hard and all over sudden forget what it takes for a photo to be accepted and be able to assess with 90% certainty that the photo is suitable (It really was 99%, but I always sent borderline images as well or even those I though were technically not good enough, but the concept, composition etc was, so the percentage dropped to 90% because of that). As far as anonymity goes, I guess some of you will just have to get my word on this, although 90% acceptance rate should be reason enough to believe me. Or not, it's your decision ;) .

What's more important most of you're more focused on the rejections and reasons behind it, but I was asking something completely different in the OP. So what's worse, cuts or not being able to get sheat online anymore (imagine you can't, if you still can;)


Hi!

Well I know this much. SS dont like poor commercial value, thats for sure, now if you have 99% acceptance at the others, why not try SS again but with a differant approach, differant subject-matter perhaps?

What do you photograph?  subject matters, I mean?

best.
I had 90% (not 99%) at SS up to a month ago. I got a warning not to resubmit photos and that my account could get suspended. Sent a batch of 5 fresh photos, 4 were rejected (got 9/9 accepted yesterday at 123RF, still pending at other agencies). So I'll wait for a while in hope for things to change.

I shoot ppl exclusively, lately I've done a couple of healthy lifestyle shoots and a stress&recession related business shoot. Things that could sell well, I don't do boring isolations on white, neither I send dozens of images that are almost identical, just with a slightly different angle. I work on quality, not quantity. I'm not saying I stand out, because I don't, but I'm pretty sure my photos are above average. I mean the sales are not so bad, I'm getting over a dollar per photo per month. It's not top notch, but I'm pretty sure top stock photographers don't get 10x more (for instance 100k with a port of 10k)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 03:48 by Slovenian »

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2011, 05:15 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2011, 06:35 »
0
Not everyone is getting the increased rejections while we all suffer from the cuts. For me, cuts are far worse, as I am till getting my work passed.

fujiko

« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2011, 06:42 »
0
Cuts affect everyone. Agency gets more, submitter gets less.
Rejections affect only few. Agency gets nothing, submitter gets nothing.

Cuts are much worse.


Slovenian

« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2011, 07:45 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2011, 08:10 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(

Yep!  thats the whole thing,  inspiration! and with plenty of models,  shouldnt be a problem, put them in all sorts of situations and avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.

Slovenian

« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2011, 09:14 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(

Yep!  thats the whole thing,  inspiration! and with plenty of models,  shouldnt be a problem, put them in all sorts of situations and avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.

Tnx, will do that ;)

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2011, 09:39 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

lagereek

« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2011, 09:48 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

Yeah right,  only in that bracket he will be compeeting against a gazillion of wanna bees thinking theyre all little Newtons, so whats the point.
Besides, Im not too sure all the stereo boobs, tits and asses, sell all that much today, what sell is probably harder stuff, mind you, you might know a lot more about that then me?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:51 by lagereek »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2011, 18:53 »
0

Yeah right,  only in that bracket he will be compeeting against a gazillion of wanna bees thinking theyre all little Newtons, so whats the point....


Well thats the paradox of microstock, isnt it? Thinly covered niches are such niches because they hardly sell. It's the same misunderstanding as is with model beauty: ppl think they find extreme features attractive, it sounds logical that you need those to stand out, but in reality mass appeal beauty means being super-average in every feature: a nose thats not too short or not too long, a forehead thats not too high or not too low... just right, right in the middle of the spread of possible proportions.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 19:24 by lthn »

« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2011, 03:11 »
0
My rejection rate has shot up with SS.  They used to sell almost everything I uploaded.  It's very inconsistent, sometimes 100% acceptance, sometimes 100% rejections.  It's their right to change things but with commission cuts and tightening of standards on the other sites, I find it hard to produce images for microstock now.

I can raise my standards but do I really want to put in more work with microstock when the future looks uncertain?  I need to know that commission cuts aren't going to continue until I'm doing this for almost nothing.

If SS want higher standard images, I want to be sure that it's worth it for me.  They need to do something like opening an exclusive images premium priced collection to get me interested again.  At the moment, I'm concentrating on alamy RM and other ways to sell my photos outside of microstock.

« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2011, 03:43 »
0
The fact is that we will work harder for less money...
Difference between growth of our effort and lesser earnings is going directly in pockets of agency owners every day...
So we have to change something or we will eat ourself veeery soon...

P.S.
They doing this because they can, historic deja vu...

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
15023 Views
Last post April 09, 2011, 17:55
by azurelaroux
It gets worse and worse here!

Started by lagereek 123RF

20 Replies
5054 Views
Last post August 31, 2011, 20:59
by alex123rf
138 Replies
28047 Views
Last post December 14, 2012, 17:07
by djpadavona
13 Replies
2558 Views
Last post December 10, 2013, 14:25
by Noedelhap
11 Replies
1694 Views
Last post February 01, 2015, 15:47
by Snow

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements