MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Microbius on June 05, 2010, 05:48
-
Oh dear......
Looks like Shutterstock are starting up a free stock site for SS rejected images. For those who feel guilty over being paid SS subscription prices.
http://www.freestock.com/ (http://www.freestock.com/)
-
I'm just very worried about the millions of images from contributors who are too excited about the exposure of their (rejected) images and offer them there.
I'm also confused about how this will actually benefit SS.
-
Well, of course I think it's a stupid idea, however, sxc.hu doesn't seem to have hurt IS much. Hopefully it will have a pretty restrictive license. Honestly though, with the quality of some of the stuff on SS, I can't imagine the kind of thing they reject.
How do you know its linked to SS? Hopefully those who submit to SS will be smart enough to option out of this ridiculousness.
-
People are invited to participate.
Then you can select which rejected pictures you want to have on Freestock. You can delete images any time you want.
But, FT, DT and IS already have Free images section. I never gave them free images and I will not at SS neither.
-
This is not bad at all!
After all we've seen this before...
Have you ever received promotional products like a shampoo, perfume or free alcoholic drink etc.?
Also, You will to decide if you want to give a picture for free or not...
That's it!
P.S.
But if you still feel bad, you can always go to the topic about Stockfresh, and be delighted and pleasantly surprised about the new agency!!!
;D ;D ;D :P :-*
(Only for those whose memory is 3 months back ONLY, no more!!!) ::)
-
There have been several threads about Freestock on SS, both have been locked by moderators.
-
there is no way this is good but I respect others opinion!
-
One interesting comment by an admin on SS was
"(successful Freestock images will be promoted to the Shutterstock collection)"
[link (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82396&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=freestock&start=45)]
which is an interesting twist on the idea - if the rejected image turns out to be a good seller, it will be promoted into the regular SS collection.
-
Interesting that several really good artists that were invited are also reporting an INCREASE in rejections the past few weeks...
-
One interesting comment by an admin on SS was
"(successful Freestock images will be promoted to the Shutterstock collection)"
[link ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82396&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=freestock&start=45[/url])]
which is an interesting twist on the idea - if the rejected image turns out to be a good seller, it will be promoted into the regular SS collection.
Interesting indeed - although they don't say how many free downloads it takes for promotoion.
I've not been invited to Freestock, but if I ever were, that's what I'd do: I would give them some pictures for free for this very reason. But a very limited number.
-
Interesting indeed - although they don't say how many free downloads it takes for promotoion.
I've not been invited to Freestock, but if I ever were, that's what I'd do: I would give them some pictures for free for this very reason. But a very limited number.
Really? You're so hard up for content that you'd give away your rejects on the hopes you might get to sell them for $.25 or whatever one day?
-
I don't get images rejected on all of the sites, so I can't justify having them free on one site while people pay on other sites. I am really not interested in free images anyway, if the sites use them to get new buyers, do we get referral fees?
-
Interesting indeed - although they don't say how many free downloads it takes for promotoion.
I've not been invited to Freestock, but if I ever were, that's what I'd do: I would give them some pictures for free for this very reason. But a very limited number.
Really? You're so hard up for content that you'd give away your rejects on the hopes you might get to sell them for $.25 or whatever one day?
I was thinking of it as a way to test those special pictures which *I* am sure they should accept but they don't - let's say one in thousands photos rejected. Just to prove the reviewers were wrong and I was right ;D. Otherwise I am not going to give away rejected pictures.
-
Honestly though, with the quality of some of the stuff on SS, I can't imagine the kind of thing they reject.
Me too. It must be quite a sad reflection on a contributor's work if they are actually 'invited' to join this scheme. How bad can their images be if they're not good enough for a "pile 'em high, flog 'em cheap" sub agency? I guess it's really an 'invitation' to give up microstock entirely.
-
I am not a fan of giving stock away for free. However there are better and worse ways to do it.
Dreamstime, for example, links a free image to similar (better!) paid images in your portfolio. They also supposedly give some weight in the default search engine (of the PAID site) to people who donate free images. So donating a few carefully chosen freebies can increase your exposure. In theory anyway.
OTOH there are micros with free sites that don't give any credit to the photographer, much less a link back to their portfolio, so I don't see any benefit to donating free images to those schemes.
It sounds like Freestock is going to link back to the photog's paid portfolio, and successful free images will be absorbed in to the paid collection. If rejected images can be opted in on a per/image basis, rather than automatically donating ALL rejected images, and if the collection is kept fairly small and low quality, this may not be terrible.
So am I thrilled this is happening? No. Is the sky falling? Not necessarily.
-
It must be quite a sad reflection on a contributor's work if they are actually 'invited' to join this scheme. How bad can their images be if they're not good enough for a "pile 'em high, flog 'em cheap" sub agency? I guess it's really an 'invitation' to give up microstock entirely.
Lets hope so. I would hate to start seeing large volumes of halfway decent images going in there.
Someone the SS forum pointed out that images can be rejected for noise, but otherwise perfectly usable in most publications.
-
I don't get images rejected on all of the sites, so I can't justify having them free on one site while people pay on other sites. I am really not interested in free images anyway, if the sites use them to get new buyers, do we get referral fees?
Exactly my attitude also.. why giving away something for free when it's being sold somewhere else..?.. ???
Patrick H.
-
I don't get images rejected on all of the sites, so I can't justify having them free on one site while people pay on other sites. I am really not interested in free images anyway, if the sites use them to get new buyers, do we get referral fees?
Exactly my attitude also.. why giving away something for free when it's being sold somewhere else..?.. ???
Patrick H.
+1 No freebies. If it sucks bad enough to be rejected on your site, you lose. Because chances are it's selling somewhere else.
-
I was reading through the link Leaf provided (thanks for posting Leaf, I couldn't find any thread about it, but I see why now after seeing the title of the thread).
Hmmm. Sounds like many of the same arguments I heard from Pro Photographers when microstock first started up. In fact, I still hear them bitching and complaining about microstock.
This cracks me up every time somebody beats this dead horse.
-
Here's what shutterstock says about freestock (on the locked link):
We understand there are some questions about Freestock. Rest assured we have not suddenly lost our minds.
We are constantly looking for ways to attract paying customers to your images. Based on our research, we know many image buyers start their searches by looking for free images on the web. We know these buyers can be converted to paying customers, and we want to bring them to Shutterstock.
To that end, we've invited a handful of Shutterstock contributors to participate in a beta test of a free stock image site called Freestock. Users who visit Freestock will be able to download a limited number of free images, and will also see Shutterstock images displayed with links to the Shutterstock site. Right now, Freestock is open by invitation only, and opt-in only; no contributors are being enrolled automatically. Contributors who choose to participate benefit by having a chance to get rejected images reconsidered (successful Freestock images will be promoted to the Shutterstock collection), and by getting their Shutterstock portfolio in front of more potential customers.
This project is still in its early phases and we welcome your feedback at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Content Operations
Shutterstock
-
I'm just very worried about the millions of images from contributors who are too excited about the exposure of their (rejected) images and offer them there.
I'm also confused about how this will actually benefit SS.
This is not open to everyone click_click. Shutterstock invite you.
My impression is maybe for older contributor with big portfolio and old pictures with no sales. I think Dreamstime give away free pictures also and open to everybody.
For me, I don't believe giving free is good idea. If my dead old pictures are dead on no sales, I prefer deletion than give free.
I find this ironic because Shutterstock want to give free like the lower placement agencies below Shutterstock.
Yes, big mystery, but Shutterstock sell many for me, so I am curious to see why they want to do this.
Market pressure by other agency. This one I think we can point finger away from Shutterstock.
-
Honestly though, with the quality of some of the stuff on SS, I can't imagine the kind of thing they reject.
Yeah no kidding! I can tell you the illustration area is a cess pool and they should really tighten up a bit there.
In the race to the bottom, the agency that dies with the most free images wins. Interpret that in any way you'd like.
-
In the race to the bottom, the agency that dies with the most free images wins. Interpret that in any way you'd like.
stormchaser, if you talk about other agency race to the bottom I maybe believe you. But this is Shutterstock. I don't think ever Shutterstock make #2 . So this is not race to the bottom. It is doing what Dreamstime and other lower agency already do.
Again, I still much surprise Shutterstock do this. Why? Maybe big chief SS woke up one morning with bad vodka decision. Ha!ha!
-
I think that the SXC model worked because there were different pools of people contributing there versus at StockXpert (now iStock); there was a clear difference in searches between what you got for free vs. for money. How many people ever actually paid for an image when they started out with a free search, I don't know. FT, DT and IS have claimed that they do, but as contributors we have no insight into that at all.
When I was independent I never submitted images to free sections (I did offer to the free image of the week at various sites). 99.99% of the time, images were not rejected everywhere and I did not want to eliminate income somewhere else. I also thought the quality of the freebies was such that I really didn't want anything of mine sitting next to them - guilt by association, as it were.
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?
Unless there was (1) something really concrete to show traffic converting from free to paid and (2) the ability to upload snapshotty stuff to the free section directly - i.e. something that won't compete with the paid stuff you upload - I can't see how it makes sense from the contributor's point of view.
-
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?
This is exactly what I was thinking.
I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?
I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?
Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?
-
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?
This is exactly what I was thinking.
I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?
I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?
Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?
I am not allowed to give because too new here but one heart to PaulieWalnuts one heart to jsnover .
Only winners for free image is agency because agency can say we have 8 million pictures for you to use.
But yes, I too believe free image is lost sale to creator and one more step in wrong direction for profitable business for stock contributor. Much like moving in direction youtube for musicians and freeloader for movies.
If we support this , soon there will be no reason to pay photographers. Or maybe already this model exist.
I hope I make sense.
-
A couple of people invited made the point it may be because they have a low acceptance rate. I'm about 85% acceptance on SS and 9 out of 10 rejections I get make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before.
As for giving these rejections away for free? If an image is seen as not up to snuff I'm not sure I want my name attached to it any longer.....and If I think it is and SS got it wrong, I'll sell it elsewhere.
-
A couple of people invited made the point it may be because they have a low acceptance rate. I'm about 85% acceptance on SS and 9 out of 10 rejections I get make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before.
As for giving these rejections away for free? If an image is seen as not up to snuff I'm not sure I want my name attached to it any longer.....and If I think it is and SS got it wrong, I'll sell it elsewhere.
Same for me. Shutterstock rejection is always I agree because when like you say-make sense once I have checked the image over - without having drunk too much wine the night before. It is not leaning on personal opinion that is shaky like we don't think this is stock material,etc that can smell doubtful.
Same with IStock rejection, always you agree. You make correction and re-submit and it approve.
But yes, if is not up to snuff, I too don't want my name attached even for free. I think everyone here is thinking same ie. not a good idea to give free.
-
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free. It just means no commissions have to be paid.
The idea is to accumulate an ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection. One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images. The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying commissions.
We get fame and recognition, of course.
-
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free. It just means no commissions have to be paid. The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection. One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images. The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.
That's another good point.
There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.
The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.
-
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free. It just means no commissions have to be paid. The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection. One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images. The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.
That's another good point.
There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.
The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.
This exactly what I think , like free music and free movies. Only so the people who give free get points from movie and music downloads. Many countries consider illegal practice for copyright infringement. Now agencies for stock want to do same?
I am sure it make money for agency and save money for freebie user. But PaulieWalnuts is right again.
We see no commission and still Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.
Not a good idea for me and you .
-
Or maybe buyer realizes how much time he or she wasted looking for that free image and decides to investigate those not free but awfully reasonable images linked from the free site. The buyer does a little cogitation and comes to the conclusion that free isn't worth what he or she paid in terms of time and tedium. I'm guessing that's the reasoning being hosting such a site. Ad revenues alone don't justify building and marketing it. Probably, anyway.
-
Or maybe buyer realizes how much time he or she wasted looking for that free image and decides to investigate those not free but awfully reasonable images linked from the free site. The buyer does a little cogitation and comes to the conclusion that free isn't worth what he or she paid in terms of time and tedium. I'm guessing that's the reasoning being hosting such a site. Ad revenues alone don't justify building and marketing it. Probably, anyway.
Good idea. So maybe it is good idea to dump crappy rejects to Free Section. Only we must remove contributor name so we can hide the shame , ha!ha!.
-
Come on guys, "free" doesn't really mean free. It just means no commissions have to be paid. The idea is to accumulate and ever-growing collection of images for which no commission has to be paid - and then, SS is free to find ways to "monetize" that collection. One obvious way is advertising - buyers will have to look at ads to get their free images. Another way would be through a subscription plan that is extremely low-cost and only gives access to the commission-free images. The plan would be called something else, of course, to maintain the "free" fiction. It might be a "search application", or a membership, but whatever it's called, it means the agency gets income without paying comissions. We get fame and recognition, of course.
That's another good point.
There are probably thousands of rejected contributors and millions of rejected images. Why not make freebie hunters stare at advertisements while they spend a ton of time looking for that gem among the junk. Buyer gets a free image, stock site gets ad revenue, contributor gets nothing.
The more I think about this the less benefit I see coming from it for all of us. Prices, commissions, and sales volume need to go up. This accomplishes none of those.
I agree with you both. There has to be money in it somewhere for the site.
Similarly, blogs used to provide a reader with information from that particular author. Now they have turned into moneymakers. The quality of the blog means nothing...all of the ads that surround the paragraph of information are the true reason for the blog...to make money for the blogger. It's not about the sharing of info anymore...it's all about money.
It is heading in the direction where there isn't going to be any actual product/content/information/images anymore...it's just a bunch of ads and people feeding off of each other.
-
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?
This is exactly what I was thinking.
I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?
I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?
Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?
I agree, for many years people said micro wouldn't do anything because poor quality. But for plenty it was 'good enough' and then through competition the standards rose, but some of my best sellers are not 'great' images and in a number of cases rejected on one site, good seller on another.
My wife bought an image for her blog on the weekend, it cost a whole $1. I really dont see why we should give them away
-
To subscriptions and to SS, being a subs site, goes the customers very price-oriented, the ones that want spend less... and nothing is less that some cents. So, this peculiar "business move" will probably have inverted effects: they will lose a portion of customers, deligthed to discover that they can spend even less --nothing.
-
As a buyer I get it. I go to the dumpster out back of the restaurant and pick through the garbage. I hear the good stuff is on the bottom. But if that stuff is too rotten I can always go in the front door and order from the menu. Thank goodness my time isn't worth anything.