MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Cap on daily earnings?  (Read 18623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2015, 16:06 »
+5
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
 - An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
 - Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2015, 16:13 »
+4
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
 - An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
 - Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.


But whether SS pays one contributor $0.38 or another contributor $0.38 doesn't matter to them. Of course newer contributors are less expensive, but not by much. Why go through all the hassle of capping their most productive and most successful contributors just to save a few cents per download? They might even lose out, because the best contributors often produce the most valuable work (because of more experience, a better track record, etc.)

« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2015, 01:14 »
+6
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
 - An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
 - Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.


Capping earnings has been going on for ages and not just in micro-stock but even in the larger traditional photo-agencies. This was a way to keep solid and productive photographers on the books, photographers that could produce special commercial material.

This I can agree with, if I was running an agency of course I would want to ensure keeping the best photographers happy or else they go.

The capping in micro-stock is not the same its difficult with hundreds of millions of pictures. In micro-stock they seem to set some sort of a roof on your earnings. People talk about the "wall" well IMO this could be the so called wall.
Lets say my average monthly earning is in the region of $.2000. Now if this is reduced to lets say $.1000/month I will become less productive, less interested in supplying. Human nature! therefore they will somehow ensure that my earnings will remain in the region of $.2000.
This is easily done with the Internet, all search changes, algorithms and so on. No big deal at all. The GI search is a classic, aggregators like Blend and the house images are almost always in the front line of any searches. Popular! is another search method of ensuring that good selling and commercial material is given first option.

Nowadays agencies can do almost anything they want and the overwhelming majority of just " ordinary" members won't even notice, won't even think about it. :)

« Last Edit: September 20, 2015, 01:16 by weymouth »

MScontributor

« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2015, 04:20 »
+2
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
 - An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
 - Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.


Capping earnings has been going on for ages and not just in micro-stock but even in the larger traditional photo-agencies. This was a way to keep solid and productive photographers on the books, photographers that could produce special commercial material.

This I can agree with, if I was running an agency of course I would want to ensure keeping the best photographers happy or else they go.

The capping in micro-stock is not the same its difficult with hundreds of millions of pictures. In micro-stock they seem to set some sort of a roof on your earnings. People talk about the "wall" well IMO this could be the so called wall.
Lets say my average monthly earning is in the region of $.2000. Now if this is reduced to lets say $.1000/month I will become less productive, less interested in supplying. Human nature! therefore they will somehow ensure that my earnings will remain in the region of $.2000.
This is easily done with the Internet, all search changes, algorithms and so on. No big deal at all. The GI search is a classic, aggregators like Blend and the house images are almost always in the front line of any searches. Popular! is another search method of ensuring that good selling and commercial material is given first option.

Nowadays agencies can do almost anything they want and the overwhelming majority of just " ordinary" members won't even notice, won't even think about it. :)

Exactly plus, many can probably live a good life with 500 or 1k a month so don't complain or care about what is happening (or as you mentioned are not even aware)
Even if that means they make the same with their current port or after adding another 1k files, as long as they get that 1k a month they will continue uploading, and high quality stuff too I might add.
Now who do you think agencies will favour? Take a good look who is in front of search...

« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2015, 10:25 »
0
Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair.

No, it was another DT admin (Dudau) who often puts his foot in his mouth. This is what he said -

"The "similars" policy has been relaxed a bit, since we updated the uploads limit, and I can say that's an acceptable selection. However, the placement changes continuously, in order to give everybody a fair chance, so what you see today on the first page it may not be there next week or the next month, depending on too many factors to be described here. As I said, it's a game of numbers and quality, and the ideal situation is to have both. If not, one should focus on at least one of these, in order to succeed."

Dudau was one of the admins that has made this statement but Serban also said it. It's very difficult to mistake the username "Achilles" with someone else. Perhaps his post has been deleted, I'm certainly not going to go looking for it, but he's also stated that social activity, posting blogs and commenting on blog posts also factors into the search results.

« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2015, 10:33 »
0
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
 - An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
 - Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.


That's a valid point. Most buyers will buy the first image that suits their needs, or a small selection of images that work well and not go through page after page, On any given *common* search like business man in meeting or girl with cell phone there will be thousands of quality images to choose from each one "the best image" for the search and if one contributor's images are suppressed, buyers wouldn't even notice.

You're also right in that they would never admit to manipulating results.

« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2015, 10:54 »
+1
Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair.

No, it was another DT admin (Dudau) who often puts his foot in his mouth. This is what he said -

"The "similars" policy has been relaxed a bit, since we updated the uploads limit, and I can say that's an acceptable selection. However, the placement changes continuously, in order to give everybody a fair chance, so what you see today on the first page it may not be there next week or the next month, depending on too many factors to be described here. As I said, it's a game of numbers and quality, and the ideal situation is to have both. If not, one should focus on at least one of these, in order to succeed."

Dudau was one of the admins that has made this statement but Serban also said it. It's very difficult to mistake the username "Achilles" with someone else. Perhaps his post has been deleted, I'm certainly not going to go looking for it, but he's also stated that social activity, posting blogs and commenting on blog posts also factors into the search results.

I seem to recall that post was made April 1st.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2015, 10:57 »
+4
So that's it then? Has Microstock Group forums been taken over by conspiracy nuts with tin foil hats?

« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2015, 10:59 »
+2
i can't say for others, but i defintely believe suspect capping in ss.
you know it is when you get a large $80 single or say handful of 28 bucks singles at the beginning of the month. then almost like a curse, zero days suddenly appear.

otoh, when you get a 100 bucks single sale on the last days of the month , this is when i cheer
and go out and get me a 6 pack because i know i will get my regular sales next month without many zero day...
that is until i hit another jackpot
and then the rest of the month would be that pot we usually visit first thing in the morning  ;D

finally, if they are encouraging us to give them new stuff, i don't see any evidence either
as most of my new stuff have been getting almost no dls at all for months.

« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2015, 11:02 »
0
Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair.


No, it was another DT admin (Dudau) who often puts his foot in his mouth. This is what he said -

"The "similars" policy has been relaxed a bit, since we updated the uploads limit, and I can say that's an acceptable selection. However, the placement changes continuously, in order to give everybody a fair chance, so what you see today on the first page it may not be there next week or the next month, depending on too many factors to be described here. As I said, it's a game of numbers and quality, and the ideal situation is to have both. If not, one should focus on at least one of these, in order to succeed."


Dudau was one of the admins that has made this statement but Serban also said it. It's very difficult to mistake the username "Achilles" with someone else. Perhaps his post has been deleted, I'm certainly not going to go looking for it, but he's also stated that social activity, posting blogs and commenting on blog posts also factors into the search results.


I seem to recall that post was made April 1st.


Nope. Close. April 2nd. The fool rule doesn't apply.

I did try to find it. Couldn't resist http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_16895
Also here: http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_16869_pg2

I'm certain  he's said it on another occasion as well but I have other things to do.

« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2015, 11:26 »
+2
I find that hard to believe. What's in it for SS to single out contributors based on their earnings?
It's not singling them out, it's levelling them out. Huge difference. You expect a greater degree of overall "enthusiasm" from your contributors if they all get something. "You can please some of the people some..."

« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2015, 12:18 »
+2
I find that hard to believe. What's in it for SS to single out contributors based on their earnings?
It's not singling them out, it's levelling them out. Huge difference. You expect a greater degree of overall "enthusiasm" from your contributors if they all get something. "You can please some of the people some..."

Spot on!  and its been going on for years. Levelling it out according to your average monthly intake. No big deal really.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2015, 12:22 »
+2
Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair.


No, it was another DT admin (Dudau) who often puts his foot in his mouth. This is what he said -

"The "similars" policy has been relaxed a bit, since we updated the uploads limit, and I can say that's an acceptable selection. However, the placement changes continuously, in order to give everybody a fair chance, so what you see today on the first page it may not be there next week or the next month, depending on too many factors to be described here. As I said, it's a game of numbers and quality, and the ideal situation is to have both. If not, one should focus on at least one of these, in order to succeed."


Dudau was one of the admins that has made this statement but Serban also said it. It's very difficult to mistake the username "Achilles" with someone else. Perhaps his post has been deleted, I'm certainly not going to go looking for it, but he's also stated that social activity, posting blogs and commenting on blog posts also factors into the search results.


I seem to recall that post was made April 1st.


Nope. Close. April 2nd. The fool rule doesn't apply.

I did try to find it. Couldn't resist http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_16895
Also here: http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_16869_pg2

I'm certain  he's said it on another occasion as well but I have other things to do.


Yep, both said in 2009. If you believe that any of the agencies are still doing things the way they were in 2009, well... I'm not defending any site or any site owner, just saying that we all know that they all manipulate the search algorithms constantly and if you think it is to make it "fair" for contributors that is naive. I believe that they make changes to shake things up in order to bring in more business for the agency, perhaps put new images in front of the loyal buyers. Which contributors benefit from any one search change is up to interpretation. If it changes and you get more sales it is looked upon as a good change, if sales drop it's easy to blame the search. We often read here that "my sales from suchandsuch site are down" with another chiming in to say "my sales on that same site are up." There are no easy answers.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2015, 13:20 »
+5
I find that hard to believe. What's in it for SS to single out contributors based on their earnings?
It's not singling them out, it's levelling them out. Huge difference. You expect a greater degree of overall "enthusiasm" from your contributors if they all get something. "You can please some of the people some..."

Enthusiasm cannot be measured, and they get plenty of images anyway, so there's no benefit for SS. In fact, you'd expect more enthusiasm if contributor actually see some growth in their earnings, instead of hitting the 'wall'.

In my opinion, the 'wall' is simply an effect of diminishing returns because of oversupply, causing your sales to be eroded because your images get less exposure. Not because SS is screwing their contributors. They have better things to do than micro-managing earnings caps of individual contributors.

« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2015, 13:32 »
+4
Whatever the reason, you can be sure that it puts money in their pocket somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. It sure isn't of any benefit to the contributor. As usual.

« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2015, 13:46 »
0
Whatever the reason, you can be sure that it puts money in their pocket somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. It sure isn't of any benefit to the contributor. As usual.

I am sorry but you don't know how wrong you are on that point :)

« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2015, 14:27 »
+3
Quote: " Serban himself has stated it outright in order, as he put it, to give everyone a fair chance".   are you sure he said that?  that is a dreadful statement from a business man. This is a cut throat business and may the best man win and I don't think you find many happily giving it away just to be fair.


No, it was another DT admin (Dudau) who often puts his foot in his mouth. This is what he said -

"The "similars" policy has been relaxed a bit, since we updated the uploads limit, and I can say that's an acceptable selection. However, the placement changes continuously, in order to give everybody a fair chance, so what you see today on the first page it may not be there next week or the next month, depending on too many factors to be described here. As I said, it's a game of numbers and quality, and the ideal situation is to have both. If not, one should focus on at least one of these, in order to succeed."


Dudau was one of the admins that has made this statement but Serban also said it. It's very difficult to mistake the username "Achilles" with someone else. Perhaps his post has been deleted, I'm certainly not going to go looking for it, but he's also stated that social activity, posting blogs and commenting on blog posts also factors into the search results.


I seem to recall that post was made April 1st.


Nope. Close. April 2nd. The fool rule doesn't apply.

I did try to find it. Couldn't resist http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_16895
Also here: http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_16869_pg2

I'm certain  he's said it on another occasion as well but I have other things to do.


Yep, both said in 2009. If you believe that any of the agencies are still doing things the way they were in 2009, well... I'm not defending any site or any site owner, just saying that we all know that they all manipulate the search algorithms constantly and if you think it is to make it "fair" for contributors that is naive. I believe that they make changes to shake things up in order to bring in more business for the agency, perhaps put new images in front of the loyal buyers. Which contributors benefit from any one search change is up to interpretation. If it changes and you get more sales it is looked upon as a good change, if sales drop it's easy to blame the search. We often read here that "my sales from suchandsuch site are down" with another chiming in to say "my sales on that same site are up." There are no easy answers.


The date doesn't matter nor does the idea of "fairness". I regret that word being included as it seems to be acting as the bright shiny jangling car keys that distract from the point. The point is that even the owner of the site has admitted on several occasions to manipulating search results regardless of the reason. That may seem like an obvious thing to most, (or perhaps not) but whether it's done to "shake things up" or enforce an earnings cap it's all manipulation.

I may be naive (anything's possible) but when one agency openly admits to * with search results for reasons other than to optimize for the best results, then they probably all do possibly for reasons like what Elena is suggesting (remember the OP?).
 


« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2015, 14:48 »
+3
Manipulate is an interesting term - no search algorithm is neutral. I think also "best" is a misleading term. I suspect buyers want images that are fit for purpose easy to find and inexpensive they don't need or want the best ever picture of a particular subject. In fact sometimes I think a stunning pic may distract from their purpose.

So if someone else picture sells rather than yours because the search algorithm changes then you have to live with it don't you?

« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2015, 19:00 »
+7
Possible answers to some questions (theoretically - I have no solid proof of anything, so this is a speculation):
 - An agency can easily limit a contributor's exposure in search results. It's fairly easy to do, just some not too complicated code.
 - Why would they do that? They are interested in getting fresh content daily. For someone starting now, it would be nearly impossible to sell anything, unless their new content is pushed up in searches. If someone's content is being pushed up, someone else's has to be pushed down. How much down? - now here is a big question. Some time ago I had an interview with SS's contributor's department, and first thing I was asked if I was happy with my earnings. I wish I said no (which was the truth - I feel I should be earning more with my portfolio), but I misunderstood the purpose and the context of the question and said yes. My earnings have been on that level ever since. It could be that they would pay you whatever they think you'd be happy with to keep uploading.
- Why wouldn't they display they "best" results to customers? Well, is there even such a thing with over 60 million images? It's A LOT of images, and even if most of them are mediocre, there is still A LOT of good ones to choose from even if they do cap people's earnings. Customers won't lose anything, and the agency would still get their sales.
Again, in the absence of any proof or statements from agencies this is all speculation. However, something's definitely going on, I wish agencies kept us informed about thing like that, at least we'd know what to expect. Most likely they won't of course, but I am fairly convinced that we're not dealing with the "let the best man win" environment like it was in the early days of microstock.


But whether SS pays one contributor $0.38 or another contributor $0.38 doesn't matter to them. Of course newer contributors are less expensive, but not by much. Why go through all the hassle of capping their most productive and most successful contributors just to save a few cents per download? They might even lose out, because the best contributors often produce the most valuable work (because of more experience, a better track record, etc.)

I think it matters because if, say, 20% of the contributors make up 80% of the sales, the rest would likely give up because they can't make any money. In my humble opinion they do this not to "cap" an individual per se (although that is the consequence) but to keep people uploading by spreading the wealth. Having 70% of motivated contributors is better than 20% when you want to differentiate yourself through content volume and variety.

« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2015, 20:39 »
+4
It is certainly true that the searches are not neutral and they are not static. If nothing else the sites want to change their searches to keep them from being gamed. They also don't want the results to always appear the same. Most sites with exclusive content say that exclusive stuff gets a boost. Many sites have some sort of ranking based on the photographer. One of the great things about the old SS search was that it didn't do that.

Any time the sites change the searches there will be winners and losers. If they really mess up the search and the shopping experience the buyers will go elsewhere (eg IS).

It is also in the interest of the sites to attract and retain new photographers. I used to wonder if small sites would produce a few bogus early sales to spur uploading since they didn't have to pay out 'til the photographer had made many more sales. The sites also don't want to discourage older photographers since they supply a good percentage of the HCV images. I think it is pretty obvious that although the pie is growing it is also getting sliced up into more and more pieces so that the average return per image is falling. One way to try to "spread the wealth" and keep more submitters happy would be to follow a big sale with a relatively poor placement for a bit.  This would be hard to prove, although seeing your images move down in the search following a big sale would be pretty good evidence. Personally I have enough crappy days followed by more crappy days that a few crappy days after a big day aren't going to prove anything.

Whatever is going on, search placement is the key to getting sales for the more common keywords and the sites keep their search sauce pretty secret.

« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2015, 21:22 »
0
Personally I have enough crappy days followed by more crappy days that a few crappy days after a big day aren't going to prove anything.

LOL. ::)  'Tis true!

« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2015, 04:23 »
+6
One way to try to "spread the wealth" and keep more submitters happy would be to follow a big sale with a relatively poor placement for a bit.  This would be hard to prove, although seeing your images move down in the search following a big sale would be pretty good evidence.

So far nobody in this discussion (and previous ones) has come up with such an observation.
This is why I personally don't believe that this active "capping" really happens.

« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2015, 04:34 »
+5

I think it matters because if, say, 20% of the contributors make up 80% of the sales, the rest would likely give up because they can't make any money. In my humble opinion they do this not to "cap" an individual per se (although that is the consequence) but to keep people uploading by spreading the wealth. Having 70% of motivated contributors is better than 20% when you want to differentiate yourself through content volume and variety.

Also useful when you don't want contributors to have any power. If the best 10% (i.e. those producing the most saleable images) were always at the top of results they would soon be the only ones making any sales and the agencies would have to start treating them like human beings for fear of losing them.

« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2015, 04:50 »
0
One way to try to "spread the wealth" and keep more submitters happy would be to follow a big sale with a relatively poor placement for a bit.  This would be hard to prove, although seeing your images move down in the search following a big sale would be pretty good evidence.

So far nobody in this discussion (and previous ones) has come up with such an observation.
This is why I personally don't believe that this active "capping" really happens.

Its never been a matter of spreading the wealth or keep submitters happy. Its always been a matter of keeping large producers of pictures, High commercial value suppliers happy. They make up the agency strength, the backbone of any stock-agency.

If X comes along and drop a portfolio of travel or landscape images X will be one in a million. Simultaneously another photographer comes along and drops a portfolio of images from the future and options exchange, stock-exchange, dealers, etc all with MR's.

Which one of these suppliers do you think will raise the agency eyebrows?

« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2015, 06:09 »
+5
Whatever the reason, you can be sure that it puts money in their pocket somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. It sure isn't of any benefit to the contributor. As usual.

I am sorry but you don't know how wrong you are on that point :)


Please, do tell me how i am wrong. 😀


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2000 Views
Last post August 19, 2012, 10:41
by WarrenPrice
0 Replies
1080 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 17:34
by jcpjr
19 Replies
2837 Views
Last post January 27, 2016, 23:48
by marthamarks
3 Replies
1443 Views
Last post July 11, 2017, 19:56
by helloitsme
6 Replies
1397 Views
Last post April 25, 2019, 22:22
by pixel86

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results