MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Crap doesn't sell at IS  (Read 8604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wut

« on: July 14, 2012, 05:48 »
0
I just noticed that going through my sales by age. When I was looking at sales from my bad/worst series it was like looking at binary code (10001110001101011010101111000). Well almost, some got 2,3 or even 4 sales. In 6 months or even a year. I think that says a lot about them, they sell quality and/or their buyers are better educated regarding photography. At other sites, especially subs based you at least get something on all that crap. But I somehow like stuff doesn't sell if it's crap and you really get rewarded if you make something good (then it can sell a lot better than on the other sites). When I think about it, a lot of ppl here say they have crappy sales there and often the reason is just that, they shoot crap (if you look at their port) and because they shoot a lot they somehow get a 4 digit payout every month (some of course don't but those don't sell much anywhere anyway). Yup, I know some ppl will hate me for saying that. As you all know by now, I don't care about that and I say what I think.

Of course a lot of crap was sold in the old days, but it was like that on all sites, there were only amateurs shooting and many of those with lots of crap and nice sales became diamonds, that now sell 100-200 images a month, which also tells a story. I hope it continues like that, so that the ppl shooting crap get washed out (but for that their old crappy files have to stop selling, they only do because of good search positions) and those that know what they're doing finally get their fair share of the pie.


Poncke

« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2012, 05:59 »
0
Everyone emptied their HDs 6 years ago, and the stock sites encouraged them to do so.  Crap is no longer accepted as far as I know. But at least you acknowledge there is also crap in your own port  8)

wut

« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2012, 06:10 »
0
That's just the problem, crap (not talking about IQ) is accepted across the board. Of course I admit I have crap in my port, I'm a no one in stock photography, nor am I a great photographer. Just better than the vast majority doing MS. Which is not really an achievement...But what I wanted to say at least crap doesn't sell, if they still accept it, at least something :)

« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2012, 06:53 »
0
The "crap" might sell when IS gets the Dollar Bin working again.

« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2012, 08:23 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

Lagereek

« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2012, 08:28 »
0
Everyone has got crap in their port, mee too. Funny but IS, is the only agency selling exclusive crap from amateurs and snappers, while the good serious stuff seems deep buried in dungeons.

wut

« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2012, 09:55 »
0
Everyone has got crap in their port, mee too. Funny but IS, is the only agency selling exclusive crap from amateurs and snappers, while the good serious stuff seems deep buried in dungeons.

These are old files (like I was saying), I agree with that assessment in that case. But newer files, think 2011 and 2012, don't.

« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2012, 09:59 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

Alamy has no QC process to speak of. They just do random spot checks. Also, IIRC, it wasn't too many years ago that they only accepted tiff files that were at least 48 mb files or larger. Back then many people were shooting digital with 4, 6, or 8 megapixel cameras, so they had to upsize just to pass the size requirement. (Alamy is one of few agencies that allows upsizing). So there are millions of files on there that have been upsized, which only accentuates any flaws.

The ironic thing is that many of the old time "pro" shooters on that site look down their noses at microstockers, when in fact some of them couldn't even get accepted at Istock or SS.

Of course there are also a lot of excellent photogs at Alamy who can provide stunning travel, landscape and nature images for the big magazines and art books.

« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2012, 10:02 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.
There is often a need for this "bad" photography. Editorial usages are not about commercial aesthetic but about conveying a story. Stories aren't always about big bright teeth and perfect figures. It's just that big bright teeth and perfect figures usually sell more because of market size.

« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2012, 10:23 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2012, 10:42 »
0

wut

« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2012, 10:48 »
0
You two got me thinking ;D

« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2012, 11:04 »
0
Wow sue.  That one has more visual impact...more poopy.

Wut I hope you have "clean" thoughts ::)

« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2012, 11:11 »
0
One thing about stock you never know what will sell and sell well. There is no way I thought that this would be a flame in under 6 months. And I have sold a lot of horse crap over the years.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18979752-home-interior-mold.php

wut

« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2012, 11:29 »
0
Wut I hope you have "clean" thoughts ::)

There's nothing clean crap so it only makes sense to not have 'em ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2012, 12:07 »
0
One thing about stock you never know what will sell and sell well. There is no way I thought that this would be a flame in under 6 months. And I have sold a lot of horse crap over the years.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18979752-home-interior-mold.php


Hope it's paid for its treatment  :)

« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2012, 12:25 »
0
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday

lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual  situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise

« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2012, 12:28 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.
There is often a need for this "bad" photography. Editorial usages are not about commercial aesthetic but about conveying a story. Stories aren't always about big bright teeth and perfect figures. It's just that big bright teeth and perfect figures usually sell more because of market size.
I agree.  I think people should spend more time looking through what's being used.  A lot of it isn't the best.  Sometimes I think people doing an article or trying to get a message across with words don't want an image that's too good to go with it, they might want something that looks like a cheap snapshot.  There's times when great images are required but there's also times when all they want is something to illustrate their work and it doesn't need to be that good.  I like to look at the recently purchased images with CanStockPhoto and see all the ones that would of been rejected by the big 4.

wut

« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2012, 13:24 »
0
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday

lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual  situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise

You're missing the point. It's about whether the photos are good (when you look at them downsized, 500 px or whatever the site uses), not IQ. And a good tog can make better photos with his mobile phone than an average with his top notch lighting, camera, lenses and props. It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need. Not to mention bad togs. You got it right in the last sentence, well that's just a part of it.

wut

« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2012, 13:29 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.
There is often a need for this "bad" photography. Editorial usages are not about commercial aesthetic but about conveying a story. Stories aren't always about big bright teeth and perfect figures. It's just that big bright teeth and perfect figures usually sell more because of market size.
I agree.  I think people should spend more time looking through what's being used.  A lot of it isn't the best.  Sometimes I think people doing an article or trying to get a message across with words don't want an image that's too good to go with it, they might want something that looks like a cheap snapshot.  There's times when great images are required but there's also times when all they want is something to illustrate their work and it doesn't need to be that good.  I like to look at the recently purchased images with CanStockPhoto and see all the ones that would of been rejected by the big 4.

That's all fine. But I think it's good at least one agency is taking the different approach. There's enough agencies that offer crap and the supply of crap is neverending anyway (not only in photography, look at X factor etc). And honestly, agencies like CS won't get the good stuff, well they will, but on a smaller scale, since many good togs are not willing to sell great works for pennies (their prices are just ridiculous).

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2012, 14:21 »
0
crap will be coming in again once they start accepting smart phone images - everyone and their grandmother will be submitting their pics thinking it will result in an easy payday

lets face it - to make decent images you need a real camera, some decent lighting, besides good taste for subject matter and composition... those shooting with phones are not in that category - the only real benefit of shooting with phone is to catch an unusual  situation or event that you wouldnt have caught otherwise

You're missing the point. It's about whether the photos are good (when you look at them downsized, 500 px or whatever the site uses), not IQ. And a good tog can make better photos with his mobile phone than an average with his top notch lighting, camera, lenses and props. It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need. Not to mention bad togs. You got it right in the last sentence, well that's just a part of it.

What's good and what's not good is purely subjective. Just because something sells as microstock doesn't necessarily make it 'good' in any other way than it's a highly selling microstock image, which is what it's good at. What sells for many thousands of dollars in an art sale, like that IMO boring canal photo, may be 'crap' to you and 'boring' to me, but presumably it had some 'good' qualities to the person who bought it.

@noodles: I'd modify your 'good lighting' to 'good light', and that's subjective. Good light as judged by an inspector who knows little about natural light may be totally wrong/'crap' for a particular subject.

@wut: "It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need." These parameters are often mutually exclusive. Hence many of the top selling micro shots are not in any way beautiful or memorable. And that's also subjective.

E.g., I sent a series to Alamy. The one which has already sold was IMO the least 'good' from the set, but I felt it had to be added to complete the series. But it sold as a standalone image.
"You never can tell what will sell".
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 15:17 by ShadySue »

« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2012, 15:05 »
0
I was being facetious of course. I was amazed at how poor the images were in the Getty portfolio of that guy that did the Olympic pictures the other day. I thought Getty was supposed to be an edited collection?

« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2012, 15:07 »
0
What's good and what's not good is purely subjective. Just because something sells as microstock doesn't necessarily make it 'good' in any other way than it's a highly selling microstock image, which is what it's good at. What sells for many thousands of dollars in an art sale, like that IMO boring canal photo, may crap to you and boring to me, but presumably it had some 'good' qualities to the person who bought it.

@noodles: I'd modify your 'good lighting' to 'good light', and that's subjective. Good light as judged by an inspector who knows little about natural light may be totally wrong/'crap' for a particular subject.

@wut: It's about knowledge, ideas and originality. And shooting what the buyers need. These are often mutually exclusive. Hence many of the top selling micro shots are not in any way beautiful or memorable. And that's also subjective.

E.g., I sent a series to Alamy. The one which has already sold was IMO the least 'good' from the set, but I felt it had to be added to complete the series. But it sold as a standalone image.
"You never can tell what will sell".

Absolutely - Eye of the beholder  :)  Stuff that's good and "good stock" is that overlap on the venn diagram.

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2012, 16:29 »
0
Completely agree with Liz.  One person's "crap" is another person's treasure.  FWIW, I see stuff sell all the time on all the sites, including Istock, that I would consider crap.  Some of it is mine (older stuff - hope I'm not still producing crap, but again, it's subjective). 

antistock

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 01:46 »
0
Seems to sell on Alamy judging by some of the diabolically bad photography they accept on there.

on one side i blame the photo buyers for this, some of the images sold there are absolutely awful, it only shows that some
photo editors are either smoking something or have a particular bad taste.

on the other side it's a smack in the face for the edited collections who think to know better what the buyers want.
it seems alamy is getting it right and that buyers love bad photos, so who are we to judge ?

Poncke

« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2012, 02:22 »
0
I think a number of stock contributors have lost touch with the real world by always producing unreal looking photos, over saturated, popping, extremely perfect looking scenes, photos that resemble utopia. When Alamy has a collection of photos that reflect reality, every day life, showing a look of real life. Those are not bad photos, those are realistic photos. People are mixing up the editorial and commercial parts of Alamy.

They have 31 million photos for a reason.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 05:16 by Poncke »

wut

« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2012, 03:37 »
0
Some of you are mixing crap with candid, real images. That being said both can be good or crap. Alamy is like a junkyard. 31 mil, yes, that's why no one here (that I've heard of) makes no real money there, it's always just a few % of total earnings, on average I mean, I've never seen someone earn 20% of total earnings there, while most of top 4 sites reach that easily, while IS and way more often SS, reach or even exceed 50% quite often. And even if someone earned over 20% on Alamy (on average, not on a lucky month with a couple of huge sells) he'd have to have a lot more photos over there, than on the micros. Ppl always say you have to have a huge port to succeed there.

« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2012, 03:59 »
0
...that's why no one here (that I've heard of) makes no real money there, it's always just a few % of total earnings...
It's a different site to the micros.  People uploading only their microstock portfolios wont make a huge amount there.  I do know some do very well there and looking at the alamy monthly earnings threads, there's people earning as much as some of the top microstock contributors.  They do have huge portfolios but it's easier to do that with alamy, as they accept almost everything.

wut

« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2012, 04:16 »
0
...that's why no one here (that I've heard of) makes no real money there, it's always just a few % of total earnings...
It's a different site to the micros.  People uploading only their microstock portfolios wont make a huge amount there.  I do know some do very well there and looking at the alamy monthly earnings threads, there's people earning as much as some of the top microstock contributors.  They do have huge portfolios but it's easier to do that with alamy, as they accept almost everything.

This is great for some, but it's not for everyone. I can shoot things that don't interest me, but I think they could sell, but I'm always trying to do as best as I can. Even though some shoots are boring, I make a challenge out of it for myself and make it interesting, at least to some degree. If I didn't do that, I'd already quit, I couldn't just shoot quantity and no quality (nicer words for crap). You're just like a conveyor belt worker, a robot then...I'm always for quality over quantity as it can be seen in this thread and the one I started a few months ago. Some are the other way around (usually because they can't do quality) and that's just fine, everybody needs to find an agent (or more), that best represent their works. If not anything else, I find Alamy's UL process repulsive, it's 10 times worse and more time consuming that at IS that is already the worst in the MS industry

« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2012, 04:32 »
0
I like producing a large quantity of crap and some quality.  Doing the type of photos that sell with microstock was becoming tedious.  After hitting the earnings wall and seeing the sites starting to cut commissions, it was time to diversify.

If you really want to concentrate on a small top quality portfolio, perhaps you should apply to Getty?

« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2012, 10:54 »
0
Hi Wut,
I'm (very) sick and can't be much active on this forum, but over the time I have read your posts and I've learned a bit about your port, the country you're coming from and your opinions.
You like telling it like (you feel) it is.
I'm going to play by that rule and hope you also accept it when other people do the same.
You like to use, and over-use, the word 'pathetic'.
Dreamstime is pathetic, Fotolia is pathetic, 123RF is pathetic too, BigStock, Deposit Photos, Veer and so on, are all pathetic. So is Alamy.
Hidden behind your anonymity you like to criticise the agencies and the work of other photographers, but you can never muster the guts to come out in the open and give your criticism a real face.
That policy is almost acceptable when it comes to agencies, but not so when you start crapping the ports of other people.
As a general rule, try not to talk about other people's work if you're too scared to show yours.
Your opinion becomes null.

Going back on topic, 'Crap doesn't sell at IStock', I have a few things to add.
You're wrong.
IStock sells plenty of crap. Just as much crap as all the other sites.
The difference is that IStock preferantialy sells their own, exclusive crap.
The image is exclusive, it wears a pretty crown made of pixels, but it's still just plain old crap.
And by the way, the vast majority of those crappy IStock exclusive images wouldn't even be accepted by the other sites today.
That's how really crappy they are.

You're planning on going exclusive at IStock.
(and now suddenly, they don't sell crap anymore!)
Your decision is based on earnings. Money is all that matters.
You don't take into consideration any other factors.
'I want money! Today!' - is all that counts to you.
That kind of attitude is doomed to fail. In *any* business.
Looking at the broader picture, taking into account everything that makes IStock today, considering their precarious future and the ownership of ghosts companies, in my opinion, IStock Photo is *the* most pathetic agency of them all.
By far.

Now, having said that, you're right.
IStock is the perfect place for you. It will fit you like a glove.
Looking forward to seeing you wearing a crown, and best of luck, :)
 

« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2012, 11:05 »
0
Hi Wut,
I'm (very) sick and can't be much active on this forum, but over the time I have read your posts and I've learned a bit about your port, the country you're coming from and your opinions.
You like telling it like (you feel) it is.
I'm going to play by that rule and hope you also accept it when other people do the same.
You like to use, and over-use, the word 'pathetic'.
Dreamstime is pathetic, Fotolia is pathetic, 123RF is pathetic too, BigStock, Deposit Photos, Veer and so on, are all pathetic. So is Alamy.
Hidden behind your anonymity you like to criticise the agencies and the work of other photographers, but you can never muster the guts to come out in the open and give your criticism a real face.
That policy is almost acceptable when it comes to agencies, but not so when you start crapping the ports of other people.
As a general rule, try not to talk about other people's work if you're too scared to show yours.
Your opinion becomes null.

Going back on topic, 'Crap doesn't sell at IStock', I have a few things to add.
You're wrong.
IStock sells plenty of crap. Just as much crap as all the other sites.
The difference is that IStock preferantialy sells their own, exclusive crap.
The image is exclusive, it wears a pretty crown made of pixels, but it's still just plain old crap.
And by the way, the vast majority of those crappy IStock exclusive images wouldn't even be accepted by the other sites today.
That's how really crappy they are.

You're planning on going exclusive at IStock.
(and now suddenly, they don't sell crap anymore!)
Your decision is based on earnings. Money is all that matters.
You don't take into consideration any other factors.
'I want money! Today!' - is all that counts to you.
That kind of attitude is doomed to fail. In *any* business.
Looking at the broader picture, taking into account everything that makes IStock today, considering their precarious future and the ownership of ghosts companies, in my opinion, IStock Photo is *the* most pathetic agency of them all.
By far.

Now, having said that, you're right.
IStock is the perfect place for you. It will fit you like a glove.
Looking forward to seeing you wearing a crown, and best of luck, :)
 

First of all, eireann, I am very sorry to hear you are very sick and I do hope you feel better soon!

As far as your post, +1. Every site sells crap, and I think it's safe to say that all contributors have crap in their portfolios, just by the simple fact that everyone's taste and aesthetic is different. Mine included. I have hesitated about pulling down some of the images that I think are crap, because they actually get downloads on some of the sites. So who's to say?

Good points, too, about thinking about other things besides money when considering sites. Some people just don't seem to care about ethics and character any more.  :(

« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2012, 16:47 »
0
Hi Wut,
I'm (very) sick and can't be much active on this forum, but over the time I have read your posts and I've learned a bit about your port, the country you're coming from and your opinions.
You like telling it like (you feel) it is.
I'm going to play by that rule and hope you also accept it when other people do the same.
You like to use, and over-use, the word 'pathetic'.
Dreamstime is pathetic, Fotolia is pathetic, 123RF is pathetic too, BigStock, Deposit Photos, Veer and so on, are all pathetic. So is Alamy.
Hidden behind your anonymity you like to criticise the agencies and the work of other photographers, but you can never muster the guts to come out in the open and give your criticism a real face.
That policy is almost acceptable when it comes to agencies, but not so when you start crapping the ports of other people.
As a general rule, try not to talk about other people's work if you're too scared to show yours.
Your opinion becomes null.

Going back on topic, 'Crap doesn't sell at IStock', I have a few things to add.
You're wrong.
IStock sells plenty of crap. Just as much crap as all the other sites.
The difference is that IStock preferantialy sells their own, exclusive crap.
The image is exclusive, it wears a pretty crown made of pixels, but it's still just plain old crap.
And by the way, the vast majority of those crappy IStock exclusive images wouldn't even be accepted by the other sites today.
That's how really crappy they are.

You're planning on going exclusive at IStock.
(and now suddenly, they don't sell crap anymore!)
Your decision is based on earnings. Money is all that matters.
You don't take into consideration any other factors.
'I want money! Today!' - is all that counts to you.
That kind of attitude is doomed to fail. In *any* business.
Looking at the broader picture, taking into account everything that makes IStock today, considering their precarious future and the ownership of ghosts companies, in my opinion, IStock Photo is *the* most pathetic agency of them all.
By far.

Now, having said that, you're right.
IStock is the perfect place for you. It will fit you like a glove.
Looking forward to seeing you wearing a crown, and best of luck, :)
 

All I could picture in my mind after reading this post was Ace Ventura doing the violent pump action  and yelling  ;"Can you feel that?!  Huh? Huh?..."

« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2012, 02:40 »
0
Perspective, friends...

I just wanted to say that we sell digital information, zeros and ones, arranged in an orderly way so they can be recognized as pictures.
But it still IS zeros and ones.

There are many factors that determine if a customer buys or not buys such a pile of zeros and ones:
Quality is one.
Availability is another.
Relevance is yet another.
Licence is also.
Price.
Compatibility.
Trend and fashion.
Traffic streams.

I would say that quality is a minor factor, compared to availability and relevance....
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 03:11 by JPSDK »

« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2012, 03:21 »
0
Crap doesn't sell at IS

IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.

As micro stock is about selling as many images as possible, an image that doesn't sell is crap regardless of opportunity, composition, technical know how etc.

Please tho, that is not to say I don't have the up most respect for vetta and the like, I do wish and aim to be that good a photographer.

But I do believe, in the world of micro stock, that greatness, and crapness is measured by downloads and time period.

PS. although anonymity is a option I wouldn't like to see removed, I can't deny that linking to your portfolio adds weight to your posts, especially if its a corker.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 03:27 by malamus »

wut

« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2012, 04:45 »
0

But I do believe, in the world of micro stock, that greatness, and crapness is measured by downloads and time period.


I just shared my observation that those factors coincide in my case at IS and many others as well. That was all ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2012, 04:58 »
0
Crap doesn't sell at IS
IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.
So the title of this pretty pointless thread should be "stuff that doesn't sell, doesn't sell".

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2012, 05:23 »
0
Crap doesn't sell at IS
IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.
So the title of this pretty pointless thread should be "stuff that doesn't sell, doesn't sell".

Well crap did sell and still sells but the proceeds are now spread out more. Therefore, better quality crap is required. Which is where Sir Wut from Crapalot comes in!

Wim

« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2012, 05:36 »
0
It is indeed a bit pointless Wut ;)
There a better things for us to do then starting threads we know will just end up flaming eachother.

The last useful thread I've read here was about the Veer/alamy issue. Now that was something to admire, contributors getting together trying to change things for the better.

Anyway, do as you please mate, whetever makes you happy :)

« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2012, 06:00 »
0
Crap doesn't sell at IS
IMO Crap doesn't sell at any micro stock site, as that is the definition of crap.
So the title of this pretty pointless thread should be "stuff that doesn't sell, doesn't sell".

No, Shady, just trying to explain my idea of crap in micro stock is not anothers idea of crap. Wut, I believe was using crap as a term for low quality images, and I wanted to share my view that if a "low quality image made a lot of money, that made it successful, and not "crap". A usefull point for any new comers trying to make money and not exceptional Art.

Id like to add to this point that may be of interest to some, my best seller (easily found) was an early shot taken on cardboard, with my first DSLR using the ceiling striplight in my spare room that wasn't big enough to swing a cat. I have recently reshot this with my new camera, new software, new mac and new lights and new photography table, and if this retake is half as successful as its predecessor it will be my second best seller.

wut

« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2012, 07:22 »
0
It is indeed a bit pointless Wut ;)
There a better things for us to do then starting threads we know will just end up flaming eachother.

The last useful thread I've read here was about the Veer/alamy issue. Now that was something to admire, contributors getting together trying to change things for the better.

Anyway, do as you please mate, whetever makes you happy :)

I can't be bothered by that anymore Wim. I'm used to that. It seems there's just so many frustrated ppl, that either can't get their sales rolling and there's also a bunch of has beens, Gold/Diamonds that now struggle to get their DLs into 4 numbers. On a yearly basis of course ;) . Or they're just so uptight they can't get a joke or their lives are so f-ed up or meaningless. I don't know and I don't really care. It's just a shame no one can stick to a topic. Luckily there are still some diamonds in the rough to be found, so it's worthwhile staying here. And some cool, funny and insightful ppl that aren't fake, politically correct and overly sensitive. Seems nowadays less and less ppl have the balls (or "the balls" in case of women)

Wim

« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2012, 07:35 »
0
Alright mate, like i've said, whatever gets you trough the day ;)

wut

« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2012, 19:22 »
0
But we can all agree, that it's easier to push crap on sub sites, can't we ;) ? I mean if you have a high daily quota (of free images, in a way you) will DL some extra shots you might need, a couple more images from the same series etc. When it comes to credits sales, buyers really think about what they need before they buy it. But if you pay 250$ or so for 750 images, you don't care that much, you just shove stuff in your shopping cart.

So now we can finally conclude that IS sells less crap then the rest. Case closed ;)

« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2012, 06:51 »
0
May aswell contribute to this ground breaking thread.

How do you want to measure it ? Who is the biggest seller of crap ?

total sales, total dollars, total royalities to contributors, % of sales that are crap

wut

« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2012, 08:15 »
0
I'm flattered :)

As far I'm concerned, SS. If you search by age, there are huge series of extensive bad photos. Every single one is bad and they multiply it by 10, so there are series of 50+ photos that do nothing (they certainly don't sell) but push the good content down the pages. Buyers get frustrated, good images don't get enough DLs (I'm mean not always, but usually they do rise to the top) to get a good placement in the popular (default search setting) etc. So it's really triple damage we're talking about. That's the reason SS stopped the new image push a year ago, because there was just to much crap mixed in that all the good stuff would get enough attention. They should accompany that with stricter reviews. They did just that, but since ms inspectors are mostly a joke when it comes to photography knowledge they just blindly rejected stuff and cut down on new content that way. But it's not only SS of course, the problem there is only most obvious because they have the biggest library and because most of us earn most there and it hurts us most to loose sales there. At the end of the day they're still the best from the agencies that we can contribute to.

I don't really get your last paragraph ???

ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2012, 08:23 »
0
I don't really get your last paragraph ???
He's looking for hard figures to back up your sweeping statements.

wut

« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2012, 08:56 »
0
I don't really get your last paragraph ???
He's looking for hard figures to back up your sweeping statements.

Who do you think I am, a company that does stats. As I said (a thousand times by now), this are my experiences, my numbers and observations of other togs. You can see ppl complaining about bad sales at IS constantly, right? That it's only their #5, #7 earner, but when you check their ports you see why. They sell crap. Most of the times. They can manage to get a sale here and there on other sites, but at IS (perhaps mostly because they don't really have subs) they just can't. Some of them have huge ports, ports of 3,4,5k or even more. Yet they only earn 1k a month or so. And have only 2 digit earnings at IS. Take your time and have a look for yourselves (meaning y'all doubters), click . out of those port links ;)

« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2012, 09:11 »
0
I don't really get your last paragraph ???
He's looking for hard figures to back up your sweeping statements.

Who do you think I am, a company that does stats. As I said (a thousand times by now), this are my experiences, my numbers and observations of other togs. You can see ppl complaining about bad sales at IS constantly, right? That it's only their #5, #7 earner, but when you check their ports you see why. They sell crap. Most of the times. They can manage to get a sale here and there on other sites, but at IS (perhaps mostly because they don't really have subs) they just can't. Some of them have huge ports, ports of 3,4,5k or even more. Yet they only earn 1k a month or so. And have only 2 digit earnings at IS. Take your time and have a look for yourselves (meaning y'all doubters), click . out of those port links ;)

you have this discussion back and forward with yourself (in here) everyday, dont understand why you are so worried about others income, just to let you know I do close to 200$/month at IS (after 5 months of no uploading there, they are my 2nd best earner every single month), Steve Heap does also over 200$.. so it would be nice to know what folks you are talking about ;D

wut

« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2012, 09:24 »
0
Earth doesn't revolve around you Luis and your accusations are just ridiculous ;) . Do you think I remember the names of bad togs? I forget most of the names of the best :) (I just had a discussion about it via pm yesterday and couldn't name more than a few;)

« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2012, 09:25 »
0
I would be absolutely astonished if I saw anyone with a similar sized port across a number of sites where IS isn't #1 or #2.  Sure, they could be a low numbers if someone only has a fraction of their port there but would have to be a tiny fraction to be lower than #5.  This has to do with buyer volumes not quality or we wouldn't see certain folks dropping the crown and not being able to get substantial numbers of images on to SS.

« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2012, 09:27 »
0
Earth doesn't revolve around you Luis and your accusations are just ridiculous ;)

and I can say the other way too no?

actually who was I accusing? werent you the one talking about other portfolio/income, this and that?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 09:34 by luissantos84 »

wut

« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2012, 09:44 »
0
When was I worried about other ppl's income. It looks like you can't even comprehend the point of this thread or better said, can't see the forrest for the trees ;)

« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2012, 09:47 »
0
When was I worried about other ppl's income. It looks like you can't even comprehend the point of this thread or better said, can't see the forrest for the trees ;)

funny how you can see always so clear, nice day for you


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2608 Views
Last post August 01, 2009, 15:52
by Magnum
4 Replies
2522 Views
Last post April 15, 2011, 09:04
by stockastic
11 Replies
2087 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 04:03
by rubyroo
29 Replies
5609 Views
Last post May 09, 2017, 16:15
by suwanneeredhead
6 Replies
2772 Views
Last post November 04, 2017, 00:44
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results