and yes, that one fotolia vote was me !

Quote from: ScrapCandy on June 20, 2009, 09:19

I recently unsubbed from a Yahoo group because of all the "Microstock is the end of the world" crying. I wrote a blog post about the complainers.

http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622

I hope it's ok to post this here. 

Are you a micro contributor?  If so, then why would you waste time trying to persuade the old timers to enter the micro market? 

I am perfectly happy to have them hate me.  Better that than joining me

rofl, now that's what I call mutual understanding, lisafx . why didn't I think of that as a suitable response. After all, hell if the old timers don't like micro that much, hey you know what? They really don't have to join us. We won't be sorry they didn't !
The feeling's mutual, lol.

I recently unsubbed from a Yahoo group because of all the "Microstock is the end of the world" crying. I wrote a blog post about the complainers.

http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622

I hope it's ok to post this here. 

actually you would be better to start a new topic as this is an OLD thread , supposed to be quite defunct or redundant

I think this stems more from the fact that the established sites with tons of images already and good sales don't really need that many more images and are getting picky.

New sites are desperate for both sales and images and take anything they can get.

You think absolutely correct Tyler. In my case exactly true. My approval rate is almost directly converse to my sales. The site where I have the highest rejection ie Fotolia, sells the most or more quickly the images they approve. Initially this was quite unpleasant for me (the higher rejection percentage than the other Big 5), but once I realised that Fotolia sells what they do approve, I stop looking at my rejections there as a bad thing. Similarly, after a year with 100% approval at the "easy" sites and 100% no sales,
I don't bother anymore uploading to such sites. I am not into the business to have my portfolio "seen", I am in the business to have my portfolio earn money.

my post was not clear. the grumbling in these threads about IS, stockxpert and the partner program has an overall message that sub models kill microstock. then to see the SS business model being held up as a shining example seems hypocritical.

how can you condemn Getty or IS or whoever is in charge at IS for trying to break into and compete with SS in the sub arena, and in the same breath hold SS up for doing precisely the same thing. building volume sales for contributors at the expense of price per unit and allowing for the devaluation of work? 

Yes, I have to agree with hawk_eye.

Sweet change of face. Suddenly Shutterstock is the sweet darling and saviour of the month, which used to be Istock. All saying how lovely your relationship is with them.
But am I mistaken or what, to have read that it was Shutterstock which started the subscription model. Had they not introduced this pay us peanuts great idea, we would not be screaming hell and high water over what Getty is doing to us at IStock and Stockxpert.  Or has everyone forgotten about that?
Sure you look at your paycheck and think oh wow, nice bossy gave me a fat check every month. But nice bossy was also the stinker who got you to accept a reduction of commission per download for the whole business.
Or did you all just contracted amnesia?

Once again, thanks puravida for setting the story straight. I don't know the history of SS, so after reading what you said and hawkeye, I wikied to learn more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutterstock
Good point both, if not for the great honourable founder of subs we would not be banting on this. They did set the model for getting all of us to be paid peanuts, as you put it.

For some reason, DT un-favors recent images. The most recent I sold is from end February. All the others are 1-3 years old. The "recent" sale was found without keywords. That means it's the result of a buyer wandering off in your port and reverting to visual search. The message is upload, and ... wait.

Well explained FlemishDreams. I was wondering how my trinkle of sales of recent images got found with no specific keyword used. Cheers for providing me with the answer.

June-Aug are very slow months, but strangely, it's not the case this year and overall the sales are UP.
I've been posting these on various forums, but here we are again. Yes, the engine algorithm got tweaked; it shows better images now from more users. It takes some time to qualify an image as "better" though I wouldn't call them old. And although you have a good point, we have plenty ways to identify the good images from the newly submitted ones.

Good to see you here Achilles with some explanation.
I loved to have my "better" images keep selling. However, I prefer that also my recently approved images get found and sell too. Or else, a year down the road, you will only be having a collection of "old" images from us, as you are scaring us away with no views, no sale, to our recently approved images. Which by then, would have all these unviewed unsold images be buried and not seeing the light of day.
If your algorithm keeps doing that, what is the point of us continuing to upload to Dreamstime?

This business has been tossed into a blender.  Getty is busily bulldozing things, and the (remaining) independents are constantly fiddling with their search priorities.

At DT and SS is my new images stopped selling, starting a couple of weeks ago. I believe both sites have stated they reduced the boost for new images.

It's been pointed out more than once that views don't matter - just sales.  So if meaningless views are reduced but sales remain, fine. 

But - the question remnains - if an image gets no views while it's new, does it "die" for good, or can it still sell later?  I don't know yet, but so far, it does not look good.

As always, it certainly would be nice of the people running these sites would be a little more open and straightforward with contributors. They don't want the competition to know the inner workings of their search functions - I get that.  But how about something simple, like "yes, new images still have a chance - we want them" or "no, it's over, stop submitting unless you have something really hot and current". 

Why would they want to spend money reviewing new images that will never sell?

Good points all. I like to know too.
Further to what you said, DT has been approving majority of my new images. But if they push these new images away , why approve them. I assume they think they are good enough to sell.
Again, to echo you, But if they can't find them, how do you sell them?

I too like a little more transparency with Dreamstime and SS. If not a public announcement, at least an email to say, "Oi, we like your stuff but hang on to them and submit them later.Or if you like, let it sit in abeyance for review. we won't review them until we need these new stuff".
Or something like that.

Anyway, I will spend more time drinking my Guinness and stop uploading to these sites until they move their priorities back to boost the new images . Also, I will just upload to the one(s) that 's been selling my new stuff really fast.

Makes sense, no? 

Hate to admit it but Dreamstime has been horrible on my newly approved images. I have a trinkle of downloads mostly subs, and all are of really old images.
Am now wondering if it's worth uploading any more new images if they are not getting any views.
Echoes of IS and StockXpert. Hmm, wonder if Getty has already bought over Dreamstime 
maybe CONSTANTIN, CARMEN, and ACHILLES just forgot to announce it   

Quote from: pieman on June 17, 2009, 13:34

Quote from: Milinz on June 17, 2009, 13:32

So, StockXpert guys and girls and all in HAAP MEDIA I really wish to give you credit and my respect for all you've done and you are doing now as true profesionals unlikely as to some amateurs on iStock!

I was hoping for more cap locks here. If this was the iStockphoto Forums your post would have been rejected.

rofl Milinz the human sequencer 

Quote from: dbvirago on June 15, 2009, 14:55

Quote from: melastmohican on June 15, 2009, 12:57

"As you may already know, iStockphoto is the industry leader in microstock. If you are not yet a contributor to iStockphoto, we would encourage you to apply, and start building your iStockphoto collection. It is a great opportunity for you to increase your earnings and visibility, while engaging in one of the world.s largest and most dynamic creative communities. iStockphoto provides a wealth of information and ideas for you to grow from."

Any sentence beginning with 'As you may already know' is almost always BS.

So true.  Much like any sentence containing the phrase "Trust me (us)".

ahem, furthermore, SS is the the "industry leader" not IS .

Quote from: Perseus on June 16, 2009, 08:41

OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?

Minimum Payout Levels:

IS: $100
DT: $100
SS: $75
FT: $50
StockXpert: $50
123RF: $50
BigStock: $30

Thank you GeoPappas. It's interesting to note that only SS payout at 75, which is lower than IS and DT. This being the real "industry leader", and prevalent unseated "leader" of micro;  not IS as they claim to be. IS has been moving back and forth among Fotolia and Dreamstime, and yes, Stockxpert.

Further, from the impression at this forum, SS contributors make more sales than IS, FT and DT, right? ie. they reach payout a lot sooner and more regularly because SS has a more effective marketing plan?

Quote from: Perseus on June 15, 2009, 09:58

Quote from: m@m on June 14, 2009, 19:49

I left MP for close to a year, and just recently starting uploading there again, based on some information by their administration, that things had change, well so far everything still the same as it was a year ago, now I'm just waiting for the new release at the end of the summer, but if this new release does not drastically changes the whole format of the site and make some sales, I will delete my portfolio and close my account, this time for good.

Don't hold your breath 

You know what Perseus, thinking about it twice, you're right!...with my past experience there, I should have known better than to start uploading to MP again...I'm out of there.

It's difficult to get a site to listen to (you) . When you weigh the consequence of say, getting rid of the ridiculous rating and comments made by amateurs with  portfolio full of noise  the size of golfballs.
Who would Mostphoto prefer to lose, a handful of contributors including yourself? or busloads of amateurs?