|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Penguin
Pages: [1]
1
« on: March 11, 2011, 03:34 »
Thanks Zager, and Merja for your detailed accounts of what's going on. Hope you will attempt to understand the concerns of contributors. We are given very little information about where and how our pictures are being represented, so we tend to be very wary.
I won't rule out uploading directly to Pixmac myself, like Mantonino is planning. Just want to do some more research and lay this issue to rest first.
And Zager, you are right, it would be nice if the agencies who have stopped their partnerships with you would be straightforward about why so we have more than guesswork and rumors to base our decisions on.
Hi Lisa, Just wanted to say I do understand your concerns. In Microstock there seems to be some strange manners which I have never seen in "traditional" stock photo industry. One of them is this hassle with using reps. It should be just ok as being local is a strength, and it is of benefit to the photographer,supplier, agency and rep. But it should be made openly. If these agencies have this opt-in/opt-out system, that should clearly list all the reps they are using, in that way the photographers would always see and know which channels are being used. And of course there should be no technical problems in that function either; if you choose to opt-out your status should stay like that and you should have no reason to do that more than once. Having said that, I am sure every single technical solution has some problems every now and then, and there always is a human person behind the technology, mistakes do happen. We should understand that, too. The representation contracts should be transparent on agencies' website, too. The supplier should list the channels they are using (on special reps page) and the rep should list the suppliers on special "supplier/partner" site. It should be allowed to show the photographer's name and the supplier's name next to the previews on the website, too. Instead of just telling here some representation has been terminated, I feel there should be reason to come in and tell about the beginning of that relationship, too. Instead of letting you all to wonder how your images are on this and that website. it is not fair either to throw here some other statement, confuse you, make you worried, and then just disappear. All kind of accusations must be based on facts and when accusations are made, one must give details, too. If it does not work like that, I get suspicous. Making decisions based on rumours must be like hell to the photographers. I do represent some local photographers too, not in microstock but in trad.RF. I see their distress about being able to make their living every single day. And I feel very sorry for them, the change in this industry has been rapid and quite unique. It has been a big change to me too; years back I was able to sell an image with 20 000 euros, next week when trad. RF showed up I was able to get only 600 euros for the same usage, now it might be 5 euros or less. It is obvious the budget prices will come to this industry, but there never was reason to go this low so my opinion is the pioneers in microstock made huge mistake. Now it is impossible to change that but we must make the best of the current system. With the low price level it is hard job for the agencies to cover the costs of technical solutions and salaries but still; offering commission of 20 % to the photographer is not fair and it is not justified ; there is no agency without images and photographers producing them so I fully understand the agony the photographers are having. Have a nice weekend!
2
« on: March 10, 2011, 10:39 »
Dear Contributors,
Kindly take note that we have sent a Termination Notice to Pixmac as an API Partner.
Thank you very much.
Alex.
Hi everyone, I wanted to stand up and say some words as Pixmac "country manager". First just so that my position is clear to everyone: - I do not have my own database but sell from Pixmac website - so no need for anyone to be scared of yet another source having your pix in some database that you are not aware of - I am not employed by Pixmac but do run my own business through which I only represent Pixmac in my country - I have no other access to any Pixmac database images than through a purchase made. So when one of my customers buys an image, it is direct purchase from Pixmac database, or if the image in question is in Pixmac via some contributor API, it is direct purchase from that contributor. All customers are registered to Pixmac database, and can buy and download images only through registration in Pixmac database. The same goes with myself; if I download some pix, I must pay for it to Pixmac. This means that even in marketing I am forced to use only preview files with watermark, because of which it is not possible to make print advertising, unless I buy the images. - I have very long past in image industry so I know all possible rules about photographers' rights, copyright law etc so I am not just someone "selling from bedroom" in hope of making quick and easy money It is great pity that 123RF has decided to leave Pixmac. It is also pity for the photographers as I know how many 123RF images I have sold in my country alone, and I also know the monthly sales overall have been very good, and the sales have been growing every single month. So many photographers will now loose money. I can also tell that Pixmac has not been allowed to show or tell anywhere on their website that 123RF images were sold by Pixmac. When 123RF came to Pixmac, I immediately asked if I can launch that representation in my Pixmac blog, or if we could get the License visible on Pixmac license page - but unfortunately it was forbidden by 123RF. So please, do not blame Pixmac team for not having shown that info anywhere. I have naturally asked for the reason of this termination from Pixmac, for the sake of my own business. It is NOT because of any misuse of API. There are NO sales that were not reported. The only reason is the photographers who have been demanding this; because of the one and only unfortunate case with payments of another supplier, it was nasty but human mistake made by a technical guy. I agree that mistake like this should not happen, I have also said that to Pixmac, but hey, is here someone who could honestly say no mistakes happen? I would love to be able to say I am perfect and never make any mistakes but unfortunately I can not. Pixmac came up and admitted they had made the mistake, they corrected the technical error asap, and made sure they paid everything they owed. I believe it would be fair if Alex could/would confirm this instead of letting you guys to think there is some dishonesty of Pixmac behind the termination. The contract is valid till the end of March so that is why your pictures still are on Pixmac website. At the moment only termination notice has been sent, there always is some notice time in cases like this, that is common contractual term. I have no access to Pixmac payment and/or reporting tools but I have made multiple questions to Pixmac about these cases. And I got answers that I can believe in. My trust is also based on the co-operation that I have had with Pixmac. If they would have given me any reason to have some doubts, I would have them and would have acted accordingly. I am sure dishonesty of any kind would have come visible to me during the time I have been selling Pixmac - please remember they owe me money every single month, and not once has there been delay or any "technical" or other kind of error in reporting or payments. I am daily in connection with the Pixmac head office; making question, making suggestions so I have learned to know the guys pretty well. Among Pixmac TMs there are many image industry professionals who share their knowledge with Pixmac and develop the agency together with Pixmac. That means we make demanding questions and requests all the time too - and act as watchdogs to Pixmac too. So in fact in Pixmac system there are many more "big brothers" watching what they are doing than in those agencies that have their own staff only. I already know what kind of replies some of you will send to this topic. So I just say that I was not asked or told by anyone in Pixmac to write this. In fact I take a risk here because they might not even like me to do this - but I take that risk. Because I feel sorry for not being able to push your images in 123RF database anymore, because you will loose money now, because it is such a pity this microstock industry has made so many people to think there are thieves behind every single corner, and because it seems to be ok to send "words flowing on the sky" instead of never telling the whole truth. And by the way, my name is Merja and I can be reached at [email protected] - I have no reason to hide myself behind nickname. Take care!
3
« on: November 25, 2010, 07:08 »
I wonder if it really is possible to enter this business only in hope of getting big money quickly and then close the doors loaded with money, the costs for starting, and especially for maintaining and developing proper online selling system, database, marketing etc is are high that serious guys must have rather big money in their pocket when starting as the way is and always will be rocky in the beginning. Some time ago there might have been people who tought it is easy to just put images online and that would easily and automatically change into big money, but I honestly believe people now now there is much more behind that. Someone here said the agency is as good as the search engine on the website. I partly agree with that saying; the better search engine is, the happier the users will be. But no matter how great the search engine is, keywording plays huge role, too so we must ourselves do it carefully, it is not possible for the reviewers to check each and every image uploaded, and it is quite difficult for a human eye to properly catch all wrong keywords afterwards; that work is much easier if checking is done when adding keywords. Pixmac has both relevancy search (photographer can state the 5 most relevant keywords). Above that there is already now possibility to show first the images that have sold best, that have been added into lightboxes, that have been opened to the preview page by the users. There is also quite unique similar search function which makes it possible not to show all similar images from one shooting in search result; check this sample > make search "aurora boroealis" (pls. forgive me for putting the link to Pixmac Finnish language page, I do it because I want to show you also how Pixmac is very local in multiple countries): http://www.pixmac.fi/pictures/aurora+borealis;collection:all > on page there you can find image http://www.pixmac.fi/kuva/revontulet+loistaa+yli+snowcovered+mets%C3%A4/000040496761 > now if I was a user who likes this image in question but would like to see more similar kind of pix I could use Find Similars function (pink link below the preview) and automatically get a selection of similar images http://www.pixmac.fi/variantti/000040496761/objectId/000040496761.The similar search is based on Visual similarity (colour, style, content, shape etc) and keywords. It is big success among users, over 80 % of Finnish users tell they are using it daily. Pixmac had rocky beginning, it still is rather small, but growing every single month. It is not just "some new agency" but people behind it are image industry professionals, have been running successful trad.agency around 15 years, still are, and are very seriously in microstock, too. That is why they invest lot of money in developing the website, search engine, new functions andmake great SEO all the time. Now that iSyndica is not working anymore, Pixmac is again opening direct upload accounts to photographers. Uploading is possible either via FTP or browser, keywords can be in IPTC fields so no need to make keywording on photographer platform (but it is possible if wanted). No need to use categories. And I am getting good results with my images there.
4
« on: November 23, 2010, 04:57 »
What I really do not understand is why Pixmac's partner is not BigStock directly but Colossus (that seems to be more responsible for this issue in my opinion) and what scares me is fact that Pixmac redistributes pictures to another agency (partly their venture) that is still able to afford to offer affiliate program). No wonder that our commissions must be that low.
... but on the other hand - I don't know why this issue is considered to be such a huge problem. Nobody cares that Thinkstock makes absolutely same mistake. You can find in many cases as photographers names "Comstock Images", "Jupiterimages (even with copyritht owner Getty Images!!!") "Brand X Pictures" etc. When it comes iStock Collection - photographer's not named at all. Well Pixmac put to Colossus "profile" Czech Republic but where's the difference?
 I believe the answer is quite simple: though some agencies have started to see the possibilities in using reps, they still are a bit jealous about their "own" business and think hiding their own name is a way to use representatives, gain more sales but do that by using some other collection name. The difference between "traditional image business" and microstock is just this; in microstock people, the agencies and the photographers, see reasons to do things behind nicknames. But using some other collection name does not mean the agencies would try to steal from the photographers. But I think it would be better for the agencies to show up with their own name with the reps, too - in marketing sense that would be only good; for the agencies and for the photographers
5
« on: November 23, 2010, 03:30 »
This post has been sad reading for me. First of all, I fully agree the photographers must and should get their names visible next to the images, instead of some agency/collection name only; that is the legal and moral right. If and when that is not done, it is either question of some technical problem in showing metadata or getting the metadata through API, or someone somewhere just is not fully familiar with importance of showing the photographer's name instead of agency/collection name. What ever the reason is, it still is pure mistake and surely many people have learned something from this case.
I personally think it is very dangerous to immediately start saying the agencies mentioned in this post, have stolen the images. We are talking about professional legal companies here, and it never is good to accuse anyone without really knowing what is going on. And I really do not believe any of these agencies would steal images. Seeing big collection like this should already tell us there is some proper source for them. Having personal discussion is always a good way to get familiar with people so if problems like this appear, make the call, discuss, find out what is going on.
Both news photo agencies and stock photo agencies, have used sub-agencies and re-sellers all around the world at least during the past 25 years, so much before microstock was started. Different kind of collection names above the agency name have also always been used, so Colossus is no weirdo in that sense. Even today with digital photography and online shopping that is the only way to cover the whole world and maximize the sales. When we choose to work with someone, we must do it with trust. So if I upload my images to some agency, I must trust I get the payments for my sold images; and I must have the same trust if this agency chooses to sell my images through some re-seller/sub-agent, too. If I do not have this trust, I can not sell my images through this agency. But I must have some proper proven reason not to trust before making decisions.
If these re-sellers/sub-agents are used, it always works so that the re-seller/sub-agent reports and pays all the sales to their source; not to individual photographer. Why, because the so called representation contract is with the agency supplying their collections containing images from various photographers. None of the "traditional" photo agencies who have representatives all around the work ask for photographer's approval to sell the images through the re-sellers/sub-agents but it is automatic system: if you put your images for sale in any news or stock image agency, your images are sold not only on their website but also on multiple other agencies' worldwide. You still get your payments from the agency to whom you uploaded your images, in your sales report you might see country names but you do not see the re-sellers' names there.
So why would we not want to spread our images through these rep channels worldwide to wide audience? Why would we not want to use the ways that have been found successfull ways of selling images? Yes, there are more players taking their share from the sales prices, but it comes back in form of more images sold. But it does not happen in days or weeks but it takes time to launch new collections, to charm the users. And it also means good collection size; if one has only few images, even only few hundreds of images, getting good sales is not possible. I fully understand we all are a bit frustrated with the prices going down all the time and sales going down, but rather than being just angry all the time we should discuss in peace about possibilities and choises; world is changing in microstock too.
Regarding the photographer's name being visible, or the fact it is perhaps not being found important so I personally, I am sorry to say this, feel we can accuse ourselves a bit about that, too: we use nicknames instead of our proper names. That de-valuates our work: when I am selling the images, too, I always ask the editorial users to publish the photographer's name but I understand they find it difficult when they should print there image was taken by some strange nickname only, which sometimes even is in japanese alphabets only, instead of being able to show proper "firstname surname". It also makes my work difficult: I would love to highlight photographers and their work in my blog and marketing by showing the name and some photographer profile with sample images. But I can not find any information about the photographer as when trying to Google the contact information so that I could ask the photographer to tell me a bit about the work, values etc I can not find anything else than urls to some images in some agency. I also believe use of nicknames makes it possible to make keyword spamming as it is so easy to hide behind the nickname.
I love photography and I love image business. I would love to be proud of microstock business, too - but somehow I feel we should start giving more value to our own work, we the photographers, we can not accept other people respect our work if we do not do it ourselves, properly, not only by being angry.
If we shoot microstock, let's do it with pride and show our names. Let's demand all photographers, professional or amateur, to keyword the images better and stop doing keyword spamming (which really devaluates our work and makes users to go away), let's demand the agencies do not lower the prices anymore, let's demand the agencies do not accept low quality imagery. Let's stop offering totally free images which again devaluate our work.
6
« on: October 08, 2010, 02:42 »
Are inMagine or ImageSource part of the "Getty Family" ?
Inmagine isn't - not sure about ImageSource.
Image Source is privately owned agency located in London, they just sell their images through Getty, above tens of other agencies worldwide. I am not sure if the images they sell through Getty are there exclusively or not; Getty often wants to select images which then can not be sold through other agencies.
7
« on: October 08, 2010, 02:39 »
I am already on Pixmac via FT and DT. It's impossible AFAIK to tell when sales come from there, but I assume I am getting my correct commissions from these sites via their partner program. Of course I would love to get the 50% commission instead, but not sure that's possible in my situation.
Anyway, I have heard very good things from people who have dealt with Pixmac directly. I wish you all success in your new job with them.
However, I would not stop uploading to the other sites either, even if they don't have sales reps pounding the pavement. I get a majority of my earnings from the top 4 micros, and it would be suicidal to dump them in favor of only working with Pixmac or any other one site.
Pixmac does not demand any exclusivity from you but you can freely work with other sites, too. Your commission would still be the same. I made some inquiries yesterday and if you would like to have exactly same images on multiple sites, and at the same time have direct contract with Pixmac, too: 1. You upload your pix to sites you choose, one of them is Pixmac 2. If Pixmac is selling images from one of those other sites that you have in your "selection", Pixmac system detects them according to your name and similar image tracking system and shows your images only through your own upload So you can have your images in Picmac with 50 % commission, and at the same time the very same pictures in other agencies, or you can choose which images you send to everyone/some of them/Pixmac only, too - no need to drop anyone away:)
8
« on: October 07, 2010, 05:55 »
9
« on: October 07, 2010, 05:13 »
Do you work for them? I will soon. Why?
Because you delivered an excellent sales pep talk. 
Pixmac had a very bumpy ride but you can't deny a passion for their business.
But seriously, can you upload to Pixmac directly when your port is already on DT and FT?
Your remark about Arcurs suggested that, as he is literally everywhere.
If so, this is a change of policy and that would change things. It's easy to send them a DVD but how do they handle duplicated content on FT and DT?
You can ask them if they're interested in your collection. I've seen somewhere that they have a duplicity system that detects what's a duplicate and what's unique pic. For Yuri it seems they simply don't take his imagery from any other source
10
« on: October 07, 2010, 01:44 »
There is one microstock agency, which is not only microstock agency but has also so called traditional RF collection, which means photographer can upload both microstock and more expensive RF imagery into database. That is Pixmac. It has been working around 2 years but the people behind the agency are from image business and have had big professional agency for over 10 years. For example Corbis and Science Photo Library are now selling through them. I have my own collection there, too, and get 50 % from the sales, no matter if 1 or 1000 images are sold, same commission. They are selling DT, FT, Colossus, Moodboard, their own collection, Yuri Arcurs directly and many more, and it looks like new collections are coming in all the time. In Cepic I learned they have local offices worldwide (USA, France, Germany, UK, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, China, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czech, Slovakia, Russia etc); local office means privately owned companies runned by people who have professional background, know their market areas and know the professional customers, make active marketing, have the website in local language, give personal service to users. They also launched this one-stop-shopping system which allows users to buy single images with higher pricing and not only credit packs. In Cepic it was said they are the only agency really making SEO, too.
Do you work for them?
I will soon. Why? Because I am happy with what they have done with my own images, because I have long past in image business, in selling and representing both the biggest news and stock agencies and private photographers, and based on my knowledge in that I am impressed about the way they are doing the business: putting together the best parts of traditional and microstock, having local offices with professional people, local language websites and local language customer service, not just big database and big bosses or staff who do not have personal contact with users or who do not know the customers, needs and culture in different market areas, because I know the owners are highly professional image industry professionals who honor images and photographers, and I can trust in them So yes, I will start pushing them and the photographers in their selection. With big heart for photography.
11
« on: October 07, 2010, 01:07 »
I could be wrong but I think 123rf has area sales reps.
In what area?
Not according to what I know
12
« on: October 06, 2010, 23:36 »
So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored.
Sorry, could you point me toward those microstock agencies that have local reps in my area to market my work? I am on all the major micros and I am not aware that any of them offer this service...
There is one microstock agency, which is not only microstock agency but has also so called traditional RF collection, which means photographer can upload both microstock and more expensive RF imagery into database. That is Pixmac. It has been working around 2 years but the people behind the agency are from image business and have had big professional agency for over 10 years. For example Corbis and Science Photo Library are now selling through them. I have my own collection there, too, and get 50 % from the sales, no matter if 1 or 1000 images are sold, same commission. They are selling DT, FT, Colossus, Moodboard, their own collection, Yuri Arcurs directly and many more, and it looks like new collections are coming in all the time. In Cepic I learned they have local offices worldwide (USA, France, Germany, UK, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, China, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czech, Slovakia, Russia etc); local office means privately owned companies runned by people who have professional background, know their market areas and know the professional customers, make active marketing, have the website in local language, give personal service to users. They also launched this one-stop-shopping system which allows users to buy single images with higher pricing and not only credit packs. In Cepic it was said they are the only agency really making SEO, too.
13
« on: October 06, 2010, 09:10 »
Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
Not another one of these posts 
The meaning was not to make you depressed but to take actions.
14
« on: October 06, 2010, 07:46 »
Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
15
« on: September 03, 2010, 02:59 »
A problem I run into...take for instance an apple.....keywords apple, fruit, food, red, round.... Did you ever see square apples? 
OK, let's give it a try.
apple, fruit, food, red, reddish, shiny, apples, fruity, isolated, cutout, silo, nobody, one, alone, tasty, glossy, tasteful, juicy, droplets, fresh, produce, cool, agriculture, agricultural, fruits, succulent, Newton, gravity, falling, Eve, Eden, dieting, diet, low-calories, slimming, target, Wilhelm, Tell, white, background, health, healthy, nature if you're Russian add sexy, beautiful if you're on 123RF add laptop, Parthenon, Florida, California, IT, sunset, waterfall, tourism, travel, resort, tropical, beach, fashion.
Include potential non-use in the description: don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but me.
Thanks for the excellent sample of the keywording mess that exists. When I see keywording like this I can not help thinking anything else but the person who made it must be totally mad, and that is exactly what the users are thinking. And I find it difficult to understand why this person took all that time to create those totally wrong keywords, even with some automatic keywording system that takes time, uff. Sorry to say that. But I am writing here only because I am trying topush the work you guys create to users, I am proud of the imagery, I am proud of my work, and would love to see the users to be proud of us, too - but in this current way it is very difficult. Believe me, I hear the comments daily, by phone, by email.
16
« on: September 03, 2010, 02:51 »
Good point of view Penquin. I personally don't use a lot of keywords and never really have. A problem I run into...take for instance an apple.....keywords apple, fruit, food, red, round....what else is there? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you have an isolated image and it only contains one item....how are you suppose to put in 7 keywords if there are only 5? The sites won't accept it unless it has at least 7. Now is when you got to start pulling some irrelevant keywords out of the air. Same thing with descriptions....sometimes a simple description isn't enough. That's when I get frustrated.
Good point. That is exactly why I said it is not possible to state any minimum or maximum amount of keywords. That just is something I can not understand. OK, minimum perhaps should be some keywords as there seem to be a lot of imagery with no keywords at all, only the title or description. But it would be so much more important to have the correct and only correct words, no matter if they are in title, description, or in keywords. If you are uploading the imagery into agency which gives top priority to title or description, put them there, and if keywords are obligatory, put the same words there, too. The title and description are important because of internet search engines, but they only make it more important to have correct words in them, too.
17
« on: September 02, 2010, 07:05 »
Yes, I agree in what you are saying. The problem seems to be that either most of the agencies can not afford having keywords in their payroll, or they are not yet interested enough in the keywording problem. And I also know that there have been keyworders hired, but they too have been doing louzy job. In keywording "less is beautiful", it is better to have only those keywords that one really can see in the image than huge list of all kind of keywords. And it really looks like many photographers think the more keywords, not matter if they are totally wrong, they somehow get more of images sold. But that is so wrong idea. The users do have the certain theme in their mind, they are looking for it, and they do not get interested in some other image if they see it in their search result, they just really get irritated, and vote with their feet.
18
« on: September 02, 2010, 05:33 »
I was very interested in hearing what Dreamstime said about keywording. Though I realize she was talking more about the technical matters of keywording on Dreamstime website (how the length of title and description affect in image visibility) I would have hoped her to say more about proper keywording, as selling microstock, or selling any photography, is all about good high quality images AND of proper keywording.
I am in business of selling microstock photography from multiple microstock agencies to users, both corporate users and private persons. I have long past in selling imagery, and have also carefully researched how and what the users are looking for, what keywords they are using, and why they are using them. I am in love with the imagery, but I must say I am extremely disappointed in the quality of the keywording of Microstock imagery. And so are the serious users, too.
The microstock agencies have in common much better websites than the so called traditional agencies. MS also has great new functions available for users and photographers. The imagery is nowadays getting better and better. So in sense of making good money, only heaven could be the limit - but the problem is the keywording - it is now almost the one and only reason why some many corporate users (advertising agencies, book publishers, magazine publishers) stay away from microstock. And finally the big money is in their hands, they are those who regulary need images. Especially the book publishers buy thousands and thousands of images every year.
Why is the keywording so bad. There are many reasons, and I wanted to list some samples:
1. Keyword spamming. There are photographers who seem to put almost all words they can find from some dictionary. 90 % of those words have nothing to do with what is essential with the image content. The users hate this. All those who are professionally involved in shooting and selling microstock should put pressure on these photographers, and to microstock sellers, so that we could get these guys out of the business
2. Discussion about the amount of keywords. It just is not possible to put any minimum or maximum keyword amount. If some technology is punishing the photographer because of the amount of keywords, that is just stupid. The amount of keywords totally depends on the image content. There must be enough keywords, but only keywords that are essential.
3. What one should have in keywords. Only what is essential, and everything that is essential. One can use, and should use, also descriptive keywords, but only essential ones.
4. The image title should be correct and short, "Smiling businesswoman in office". The description can be a bit longer, but not too long. Please keep in your mind that mostly also title and description are used in search engines, so everything you have in title and description have effect on search result - so be careful not to use any words that might show the image in wrong search result
5. Language. Usually the keywords must be in english. One should always make sure the used keyword is correct in english; it is not enough just to take the word from dictionary, but it is important to know/learn/understand the context, too. And one should never just "invent" new english words.
I want to share the following samples with you:
- words "honey, baby, babe, *, pussycat" in images showing ordinary women and girls (housewife, businesswoman, schoolgirl, teenager etc) - these are not only humiliating women nowadays, but also create totally wrong search results. When there is some editorial user wanting to find nice baby image to illustrate the baby/maternity magazine, this user really hates to see all those images showing adult women, or teenagers, etc. And really, women are representing around 80 % of professional image buyers, we should not make them angry by saying they are babies or pussycats....
- food. Some cow on field, or fish in lake, is not yet food. They are animals. We can have "beef cattle" in keywords, but not food. One should either not write keyword "kitchen" in every image showing fish, fruit, vegetable, meal etc - kitchen should be used only if the room kitchen is visible, or it is an image of kitchen sink, kitchen utensils etc
- berry and fruit. Apple is fruit, but it is not berry. Bilberry is berry but not fruit. There is difference, let's not mix these and make users mad. It is possible to make juice and jam from apple, but if the image is not showing juice or jam but only some apples, one should not put "jam" and/or "juice" in the keywords.
- Santa Claus. Most of the Xmas images seem to contain keyword "Santa Claus" though the image is not showing Santa Claus. If there is some child or woman or just father of some family wearing "santa hat", pls. do not put there "Santa Claus", as that word should be used only for that old man giving preasants once a year.
- in common: please do not list everything Xmas contains in all images: if there is an image showing Xmas tree, please do not put there "Santa Claus, Christmas preasant, baby, family, gift, jesus, baby jesus" etc if those things are not visible in the image. And though Jesus was born on Xmas, do not put that keyword in the images, unless the image really shows some Jesus statue or Jesus painting.
- foetus; there are thousands of images listing keyword "foetus" though the image shows only "pregnant woman". Yes, the foetus is inside her stomach, but we can not see it in the image, so we can not put it in keywords/title/description.
- be careful with ages and terms for them: kids between 0-2 years (max) are babies, 2+-4 are toddlers, 4+-5 are small children, 6+ are preschoolers, 12-19 years-old are teenages etc. Middle-age starts at 40+, seniors are 60+
- when there is a batch of images from same shooting and one is using some keyword template; be sure to delete the wrong keywords so that word "woman" goes only into those images that really show woman and word "man" only into those that really show "man" and words "man and woman" go only tot hose that really show both of them
This list could be continued for ever, but I believe the samples give a small hint of the problemacy that now exists in keywording. I really think we all should give more value to what we are doing, and start doing it even better. In that way no-one can beat us.
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
I thought that was a trait of a different agency altogether 
