pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Premiere Collection nomination  (Read 6751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 11, 2009, 20:41 »
0
I just received an email from IS informing me that their editors had chosen one of my shots for inclusion in the PC.

I already have three images there that I nominated myself and were accepted, but this is not one that I nominated myself.
While I think it is an OK shot, I would not have nominated it myself as I feel that there are a couple of others from the same series that are superior.
I guess that I just do not have a firm handle as to what the criteria may be for the PC collection.

Does anyone have a more or less definitive idea?

Here is the image:


« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2009, 21:07 »
0
No, it's pretty much a mishmash of hot shots and random stuff at this point.  There's really neat stuff in there, and then some where you're like "what?".

« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2009, 21:44 »
0
No, it's pretty much a mishmash of hot shots and random stuff at this point.  There's really neat stuff in there, and then some where you're like "what?".

I was hoping the last email about it would spell things out more clearly - something like a collection of similar shots captioned "this is premiere" and "this isn't" would have been nice.

Can anyone see what's in the collection so far, or do you have special privileges?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 21:49 by sharply_done »

« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2009, 22:28 »
0
No, it's pretty much a mishmash of hot shots and random stuff at this point.  There's really neat stuff in there, and then some where you're like "what?".


Mishmash LOL!
Sean your Yiddishe background is showing  ;D

michealo

« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2009, 03:32 »
0
No, it's pretty much a mishmash of hot shots and random stuff at this point.  There's really neat stuff in there, and then some where you're like "what?".


I was hoping the last email about it would spell things out more clearly - something like a collection of similar shots captioned "this is premiere" and "this isn't" would have been nice.

Can anyone see what's in the collection so far, or do you have special privileges?



There is a Pulse lightbox which contains what users think should be in there (som eof which is and some of which isn't)

Here is a lightbox from a race I'm in containing the premiere images from those contributors

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=6382995




« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2009, 04:02 »
0
Mishmash LOL!
Sean your Yiddishe background is showing  ;D

Oy gevalt!

« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2009, 04:22 »
0
Mind me asking, what's a premiere collection ? I couldn't find anything on the IS forums. Thanks

« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2009, 04:39 »
0
Mind me asking, what's a premiere collection ? I couldn't find anything on the IS forums. Thanks


It's for iStock exclusives only
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/premiere-collection-submission-process-announced/

« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2009, 05:49 »
0
Mind me asking, what's a premiere collection ? I couldn't find anything on the IS forums. Thanks


The original announcement was made with the year-end-new-year statement by Kelly Thompson in December 2008:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80935&page=1

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2009, 11:03 »
0
I think it's a bit weird too. I nominated two photos based solely on the number of positive reviews by people not on my CN (and whom I don't know) and low sales. TBH, I was fairly surprised when they were accepted (but then again I was astonished when Getty accepted me via the iStock silver thingy).
Since then I've had notification of four other files being slated for Premier. One 'singleton', two from a series and one from a series of two. Seems odd that buyers could get one from the 'main' collection for a lower price than a similar-ish one in the Premier collection - and the polar opposite to the 'similars' rule with Getty.

« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2009, 12:35 »
0
... Seems odd that buyers could get one from the 'main' collection for a lower price than a similar-ish one in the Premier collection - and the polar opposite to the 'similars' rule with Getty.

I don't think similar images is much of an issue. The hope is that fussy or short-on-time buyers will search only the Premiere Collection. I think the success of Fotolia's Infinite Collection is because of this - it isn't because of quality, that much is certain.

« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2009, 12:51 »
0
I am wondering if IS isn't going for a 'Halo effect'.
For those not familiar, this is an old automobile company tactic.

Produce a flagship automobile in small numbers (think Dodge Viper for instance) that you don't intend to sell many of...but it will get people into the store and excited about your brand.

In essence IS might be saying: here is our best of the best... but if you cannot afford this, check out the artists port, there may be something similar there for less.

« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2009, 13:05 »
0
I think the success of Fotolia's Infinite Collection is because of this - it isn't because of quality, that much is certain.

I'd agree on the quality issue but, out of interest, what makes you think that FT's Infinite collection is a 'success'?

Obviously download numbers aren't visible and I'd always assumed that their favoured search order positioning was due to them being placed rather than having earned it __ although that was just a guess based on their apparent saleability.

Funnily enough I was chatting to a buddy recently who buys his stuff at FT and he was both angry and confused why he was suddenly being asked to pay 10x more than he was used to for an image. He wasn't aware of the Infinite Collection and he didn't appreciate the way he was introduced to it.

« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2009, 13:35 »
0

I'd agree on the quality issue but, out of interest, what makes you think that FT's Infinite collection is a 'success'?

Obviously download numbers aren't visible and I'd always assumed that their favoured search order positioning was due to them being placed rather than having earned it __ although that was just a guess based on their apparent saleability.

They don't show the download numbers, but if you sort a search by downloads, then the Infinite collection pictures seem to appear in the right order, thus you can derive the approximate number of downloads. Not sure that this is really true or if they are presented there in some random order, but I would assume that FT would not put effort in programming something like that (after all, sort by download is just a simple database query...)

« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2009, 14:07 »
0
They don't show the download numbers, but if you sort a search by downloads, then the Infinite collection pictures seem to appear in the right order, thus you can derive the approximate number of downloads. Not sure that this is really true or if they are presented there in some random order, but I would assume that FT would not put effort in programming something like that (after all, sort by download is just a simple database query...)

Interesting idea but it's easy to prove that it doesn't work.

Do a search, sort them by DL's and then pick an Infinite image that appears to have definite no of sales (say either 43 or 42 because of it's placement amongst the other images). Now click on another of its own keywords to bring up another search, sort again by DL's and see if it appears in between images with the same number of sales __ it won't. It appears to prove that Infinite images are indeed 'placed' favourably within any search criteria.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2009, 14:20 »
0
They don't show the download numbers, but if you sort a search by downloads, then the Infinite collection pictures seem to appear in the right order, thus you can derive the approximate number of downloads. Not sure that this is really true or if they are presented there in some random order, but I would assume that FT would not put effort in programming something like that (after all, sort by download is just a simple database query...)

Interesting idea but it's easy to prove that it doesn't work.

Do a search, sort them by DL's and then pick an Infinite image that appears to have definite no of sales (say either 43 or 42 because of it's placement amongst the other images). Now click on another of its own keywords to bring up another search, sort again by DL's and see if it appears in between images with the same number of sales __ it won't. It appears to prove that Infinite images are indeed 'placed' favourably within any search criteria.

Hmm, very interesting.
So, which came first? the chicken (favourable placement in search) or the egg (the sales and downloads)?
IOW, did they get to be downloaded the most because they were placed first in the search and found the most, or they earned that favorable placement AFTER they became downloaded the most?

just wondering, as favouritism sure stinks. of course, it's prevalent with every site no doubt.
would it be a lovely world if we were all given a level playing field so that no one person gets to flood the search with all his/her images in preference to other less fortunate to have their images hidden under pages 50, 100, 200,etc?

but then again, i am dreaming , am i?   ;)

« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2009, 14:22 »
0
You're right, I never tried that far...
So it is obviously preferred placement for those pictures. Some I came over when checking right now sell for 95 Credits for XS... And are attributed to "Corbis"... It would really be nice to know, if any of them sell, as sometimes images with the same quality can be available for roughly 1% of the price in the regular collection.
But I'm afraid we will never know...

« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2009, 19:09 »
0
Hmm, very interesting.
So, which came first? the chicken (favourable placement in search) or the egg (the sales and downloads)?
IOW, did they get to be downloaded the most because they were placed first in the search and found the most, or they earned that favorable placement AFTER they became downloaded the most?
...

Sales are always a direct result of exposure. Putting it another way, a mediocre image with good exposure will outsell an outstanding image with poor exposure by a very large margin. This is why knowing the ins and outs of each agency's search engine is so important. Once you know how to make an image that is 'good enough', exposure and keywording become the most important aspects to success in this industry.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 19:13 by sharply_done »

« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2009, 20:51 »
0
"Sales are always a direct result of exposure. Putting it another way, a mediocre image with good exposure will outsell an outstanding image with poor exposure by a very large margin. This is why knowing the ins and outs of each agency's search engine is so important. Once you know how to make an image that is 'good enough', exposure and keywording become the most important aspects to success in this industry."

Easy for you to say Stephen. Your images are way more than just "good enough".
But you are very correct about exposure.

I have seen some dismal images with hefty sales because they had the advantage of early exposure.
I find myself wishing these days that I had a background in SEO and keywording, rather than a background of music, art and photography  :-\

« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2009, 06:41 »
0
Sales are always a direct result of exposure. Putting it another way, a mediocre image with good exposure will outsell an outstanding image with poor exposure by a very large margin.

True __ but there's not much you can actually do about it

This is why knowing the ins and outs of each agency's search engine is so important.

How? Even if you understand the search order algorithm there's not necessarily anything you can actually do about it. Apart from gaming the system by buying (or having someone else do it) your own images you can't influence where your image appears __ and that route will most likely end up with you being banned.

Once you know how to make an image that is 'good enough', exposure and keywording become the most important aspects to success in this industry.

Definitely not the case __ image saleability is by far the most important factor. It's just a matter of luck on whether it gathers a few early sales. Even if it doesn't happen immediately it can still take off later. An image I uploaded to IS in 2005 performed disappointingly in comparison to everywhere else __ until this year. Between 2006-8 it sold just 80x __ but has sold 190x already this year. Go figure.



SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2009, 01:08 »
0
don't agree that a poor or mediocre image will sell if it gets continuous exposure. algorithm changes can put a file that did not get initial exposure back in the game overnight. it can take off well after it was uploaded. an obviously inferior file that gets exposure won't sell enough to keep it afloat, and inevitably it will fall back in the results as better, newer files fill best match 'new file' slots and compete with it.

michealo

« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2009, 02:26 »
0
don't agree that a poor or mediocre image will sell if it gets continuous exposure. algorithm changes can put a file that did not get initial exposure back in the game overnight. it can take off well after it was uploaded. an obviously inferior file that gets exposure won't sell enough to keep it afloat, and inevitably it will fall back in the results as better, newer files fill best match 'new file' slots and compete with it.

Au contraire, slap any old image on the front page of IS and watch the sales soar and many users spend their time making lightboxes for the extra visibility it gains them.

Some of the highly successfully contributers have files from a few years ago that by their own admission wouldn't pass inspection. Indeed at least one has a message on some of his files not to buy that he has better ones in his portfolio but they still get downloaded.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2009, 10:58 »
0
^ hmm, maybe. just went through the IOTW file archives to check out the dl rates, not that good considering the attention from the week-long exposure--some exceptions. most of them are nice, but too artsy to sell regularly. great bu artsy photos, with lots of exposure, don't seem to sell next to plain good stock.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 21:33 by hawk_eye »

« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2009, 17:33 »
0
Just a quick update.

The file from my opening post just sold today as a Vetta.
It netted $7.42 for a small.
I would have had to sell more than 21 copies of this file @ $0.35 ea for he same net.

In conclusion, I guess the editors/inspectors do know what they are doing.
I never thought this would sell as a Vetta, but I was wrong  :-[


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3267 Views
Last post April 30, 2009, 13:24
by batman
5 Replies
2970 Views
Last post May 15, 2009, 19:57
by microstockinsider
7 Replies
2759 Views
Last post January 21, 2012, 16:07
by ShadySue
5 Replies
2642 Views
Last post February 25, 2018, 17:30
by increasingdifficulty
6 Replies
1915 Views
Last post October 11, 2018, 20:47
by michellesphotostyle

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results