MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: RT on November 16, 2011, 15:14
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/control-your-portfolio-opt-in-or-opt-out?sid=NOVNLS&utm_source=article2&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NOVNLS (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/control-your-portfolio-opt-in-or-opt-out?sid=NOVNLS&utm_source=article2&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NOVNLS)
Looks like Shutterstock have woken up to what been happening at iStockphoto, I'm not sure how many serious exclusive contributors would be interested though.
-
It's a really smart idea.
-
It doesn't look like they are offering anything, but it does show that exclusives are leaving iStock doesn't it?
-
Didn't either FT or DT do this last year at The Shocker?
-
It doesn't look like they are offering anything, but it does show that exclusives are leaving iStock doesn't it?
Yes, they are offering exclusives a way to minimize financial loss during transition to non-exclusivity and surely this was something many exclusives weren't aware of..
-
This feature has been around for a while. It just looks like now SS is actively promoting it as an incentive to ditch the crown. Pretty smart, although I can't say I'm exactly thrilled about it. Don't need the added competition. ;)
-
... I'm not sure how many serious exclusive contributors would be interested though.
They say patience is a virtue (and SS seem to have it in spades). Judging by the traffic statistics a trickle now may turn into a flood in a few more months. When one or two of the big players (i.e. the BD's) drop their crowns it may well start a mass-exodus.
-
It doesn't look like they are offering anything, but it does show that exclusives are leaving iStock doesn't it?
Yes, they are offering exclusives a way to minimize financial loss during transition to non-exclusivity and surely this was something many exclusives weren't aware of..
They have had this forever, as far as I know. When I was on SS most images would only sell a lot when first uploaded so waiting 30 days with images not selling would have reduced your income by a ton. Maybe they have changed their search since most popular (or Best Match or whatever it's called) was determined by sales/time online.
-
Genius! Reading it right now. Speaking as an exclusive that's getting ready to pack his bags, this kind of hand-holding and guiding will really make my decision easier. It's scary for sheltered noobs like us going into the wild. ;D
-
This is really interesting.
If I could find a similar service at FT and DT I might well finally take the dreaded jump into independence.
It'll still take me months and months to upload thousands of images though.
-
DT has this feature (albeit customer service has to do it for you). FT doesn't, but unless you've upset them, they may be willing to work with you.
-
High ranking istock exclusives all have a lot files in the very successful Vetta collection. Unless someone else comes up with an offer to pay more for these files and promote them as heavily as istock does, I doubt any istock superstars will go independent.
At the microstock expo SS said, they had no plans to introduce a high end collection.
-
It doesn't look like they are offering anything, but it does show that exclusives are leaving iStock doesn't it?
Yes, they are offering exclusives a way to minimize financial loss during transition to non-exclusivity and surely this was something many exclusives weren't aware of..
They have had this forever, as far as I know. When I was on SS most images would only sell a lot when first uploaded so waiting 30 days with images not selling would have reduced your income by a ton. Maybe they have changed their search since most popular (or Best Match or whatever it's called) was determined by sales/time online.
unless they have an account with SS, there is no chance exclusives would know this.. now they do!
-
This is really interesting.
If I could find a similar service at FT and DT I might well finally take the dreaded jump into independence.
It'll still take me months and months to upload thousands of images though.
FT may welcome you with a high starting rank, which they've done for others before. Try contacting them and find out what the current deal might be.
Sure, it will be a pain uploading your port but, the longer you leave it and the more your port grows the harder it will become. It is also getting progressively harder for new images to 'take off' so again, the sooner you start the better.
-
This is really interesting.
If I could find a similar service at FT and DT I might well finally take the dreaded jump into independence.
It'll still take me months and months to upload thousands of images though.
If you have IPTC data embedded, uploading 1000 images on SS, DT and FT wouldn't take a day!
But no, good idea! Stay exclusive please :)
-
Please, stop encouraging them, Gostwyck. It's better to leave them clinging to iS.
-
High ranking istock exclusives all have a lot files in the very successful Vetta collection. Unless someone else comes up with an offer to pay more for these files and promote them as heavily as istock does, I doubt any istock superstars will go independent.
At the microstock expo SS said, they had no plans to introduce a high end collection.
I don't know the answer but say someone had the same successful images on five sites, instead of the one site as Vetta, would they make more money from five standard downloads than each Vetta collection sale?
Say SS, DT, FT, 123RF and IS for example?
What do you think?
-
Please, stop encouraging them, Gostwyck. It's better to leave them clinging to iS.
I don't necessarily see it that way. The market (the pie) should remain about the same size as Istock's buyers will simply move elsewhere. If Istock were to lose a lot of custom then it would certainly send a very severe warning to any other agency that attempted to be so greedy in the future. For independent contributors the losses and the gains from exclusives giving up their crowns would probably balance out with the added bonus of no single agency having such a massively dominant position in the market.
-
If you have IPTC data embedded, uploading 1000 images on SS, DT and FT wouldn't take a day!
Rubbish!
-
High ranking istock exclusives all have a lot files in the very successful Vetta collection. Unless someone else comes up with an offer to pay more for these files and promote them as heavily as istock does, I doubt any istock superstars will go independent.
At the microstock expo SS said, they had no plans to introduce a high end collection.
I don't know the answer but say someone had the same successful images on five sites, instead of the one site as Vetta, would they make more money from five standard downloads than each Vetta collection sale?
Say SS, DT, FT, 123RF and IS for example?
What do you think?
I doubt it. Vetta files are artistic images that only sell in low volume. It is not typical stock. Many files that are now Vetta were on istock for years and didnīt sell, many even had zero sales although they were much cheaper than now. By promoting Vetta and combining them all in one collection, istock made it easy for customers looking for these files to find them. And this encouraged the artists to produce more of them and invest in expensive shootings for non generic files.
istock/getty have a lot of big customers with deep pockets. They pay for the time saved by having all these files preselected by the istock editors.
-
Please, stop encouraging them, Gostwyck. It's better to leave them clinging to iS.
I don't necessarily see it that way. The market (the pie) should remain about the same size as Istock's buyers will simply move elsewhere. If Istock were to lose a lot of custom then it would certainly send a very severe warning to any other agency that attempted to be so greedy in the future. For independent contributors the losses and the gains from exclusives giving up their crowns would probably balance out with the added bonus of no single agency having such a massively dominant position in the market.
Well, that's an interesting theory. I really don't know, one way or the other. There would need to be a big increase in overall file sales, given that iS prices are so much higher than other agencies'. Otherwise we would be collecting 38c on SS for a sale that would have netted us $1.50 on iS. But it's not impossible that a lot of agencies would just spend the budget and buy more.
-
If you have IPTC data embedded, uploading 1000 images on SS, DT and FT wouldn't take a day!
Rubbish!
Indeed. While one could actually upload 1000 images a day with a fast FTP connection,
1) there's still a lot of manual work to do on site - especially FT and DT - which will take much more than a day;
2) they would probably reject more images than if you upload a reasonable amount;
3) you'll probably get a worse search placement than uploading few at a time
With few, I don't mean one or two; 50 a day is fine in my opinion; 1000 is not.
-
I actually might be the culprit behind that article. I was a diamond exclusive at istock and recently dropped the crown. During my 30 day notice period that istock requires to drop exclusivity, I submitted my first 10 to be accepted as a contributor on Shutterstock and got in within 24 hours. Not only was I surprised that it happened so quickly, I also didn't know that my initial submission would be posted and for sale immediately. At istock, you have to resubmit your initial submission. When I found out, I immediately deleted the 10 images in my SS portfolio and resubmitted them after my 30 days were up. I didn't know until after the fact when I contacted support about the feature SS pointed out in the article. So maybe that's why - it's an important feature to know about.
-
One really nice thing about it is that you can test the waters with some of your images and get a feel for whether standards have risen since your content was put up somewhere as an exclusive... Useful to know before you even make your decision to drop exclusivity somewhere.
-
High ranking istock exclusives all have a lot files in the very successful Vetta collection. Unless someone else comes up with an offer to pay more for these files and promote them as heavily as istock does, I doubt any istock superstars will go independent.
At the microstock expo SS said, they had no plans to introduce a high end collection.
I don't know the answer but say someone had the same successful images on five sites, instead of the one site as Vetta, would they make more money from five standard downloads than each Vetta collection sale?
Say SS, DT, FT, 123RF and IS for example?
What do you think?
I doubt it. Vetta files are artistic images that only sell in low volume. It is not typical stock. Many files that are now Vetta were on istock for years and didnīt sell, many even had zero sales although they were much cheaper than now. By promoting Vetta and combining them all in one collection, istock made it easy for customers looking for these files to find them. And this encouraged the artists to produce more of them and invest in expensive shootings for non generic files.
istock/getty have a lot of big customers with deep pockets. They pay for the time saved by having all these files preselected by the istock editors.
That's why I asked someone who knows, I don't have anything Vetta and don't know how they sell or for how much. If five low sales equal the one limited Vetta sale for a higher price, no loss.
The second part is all the rest of someones files. What percentage go to Vetta? Then all the rest are just standard files. People who lose Vetta aren't losing their whole collection at a higher price, just some exclusive very special images.
Back to the same question, or part two. If someone sells their entire portfolio on five agencies vs one, do they make more? That includes giving up better percentages on IS, giving up Vetta but adding four more sites.
On the side of Exclusives, there's also a small problem that's more recent. There's no guarantee that 100% of the files will be accepted on the new sites. Someone could risk leaving as an exclusive and then get only 40% accepted, in which case might be a problem. We can't assume that everything will be accepted or that it will sell on the new other four sites. There's a fairly big risk in dropping the known for the unknown at this point. Popularity for new files, may not equal well establish similar images. New files that prefirmed well on IS could sit on the back pages of new sites.
Not everything is rosy and predictable.
-
Smart move! Making good use of the massive unhappiness of current IS exclusives. It shows that SS knows what they're doing and that they're closely observing the current market/competitors.
-
Well I've applied and been accepted to SS using their "disable" option for now. Waiting for some response from iS about the current situation (I doubt it will be what I want to hear anyway) before I decide to make the jump off the exclusive ship. SS' uploading process is SOOO much simpler than iS, and they reviewed my application within 12 hours or something. What's weird is that a few of my vettas on iS weren't accepted because they had "limited commercial value", even though they've sold a good number of times at a high price on iS. Is there an appeal process on SS? If this is off-topic never mind.
-
tee, there's no official appeal process on shutterstock; but if you feel its really an unfair rejection you can send a mail to [email protected]; i've done it twice and once it was reversed.
Resubmitting is also an option, but dont do it without a note as you can get "warned "for that.
-
tee, there's no official appeal process on shutterstock; but if you feel its really an unfair rejection you can send a mail to [email protected]; i've done it twice and once it was reversed.
Resubmitting is also an option, but dont do it without a note as you can get "warned "for that.
Thanks for the info ;D
-
What's weird is that a few of my vettas on iS weren't accepted because they had "limited commercial value", even though they've sold a good number of times at a high price on iS. Is there an appeal process on SS? If this is off-topic never mind.
Nothing formal, but I had a similar experience with some ex-Vettas and best sellers rejected for limited commercial value. For some I resubmitted with a note to the reviewer of how many times the files had sold on iStock and in most cases they were accepted the second time. I always note when it's a resubmission and what I've changed or why I'm trying again - in the note to reviewer, another nice feature. I would strongly discourage trying again without a note and I don't think a support ticket will get you anywhere other than referred to SS's critique forum. I don't think the latter's helpful unless you think there's something wrong with your image and you want to figure out what and how to fix.
What you'll find is that there are some types of shots where SS will happily accept things iStock never would but also that some things that (a) I think are commercial (b) iStock accepted and (c) are technically sound that SS just won't take. For a variety of reasons this is also true of other sites - DT has problems with more than a handful from a series, 123rf is super-picky about property releases, even for things shot from a public place, and so no. Fight a few if you think it's worth it, but otherwise just move on. The agencies generally don't budge if you hit one of their policy walls.
-
What's weird is that a few of my vettas on iS weren't accepted because they had "limited commercial value", even though they've sold a good number of times at a high price on iS. Is there an appeal process on SS? If this is off-topic never mind.
Nothing formal, but I had a similar experience with some ex-Vettas and best sellers rejected for limited commercial value. For some I resubmitted with a note to the reviewer of how many times the files had sold on iStock and in most cases they were accepted the second time. I always note when it's a resubmission and what I've changed or why I'm trying again - in the note to reviewer, another nice feature. I would strongly discourage trying again without a note and I don't think a support ticket will get you anywhere other than referred to SS's critique forum. I don't think the latter's helpful unless you think there's something wrong with your image and you want to figure out what and how to fix.
What you'll find is that there are some types of shots where SS will happily accept things iStock never would but also that some things that (a) I think are commercial (b) iStock accepted and (c) are technically sound that SS just won't take. For a variety of reasons this is also true of other sites - DT has problems with more than a handful from a series, 123rf is super-picky about property releases, even for things shot from a public place, and so no. Fight a few if you think it's worth it, but otherwise just move on. The agencies generally don't budge if you hit one of their policy walls.
Thanks for the helpful hints, Jo Ann. I'm finding the same issue with limited commercial value rejections on SS that I know are proven sellers on IS. I'm glad to know that SS will reconsider sometimes.
I have to scratch my head with the amount of latitude SS gives inspectors with the LCV rejections, especially in an area that is completely subjective. To me, SS is leaving good money on the table by trying to guess what designers want and don't want. But as you say, each agency has its hot buttons and they are all trying to keep their swelling databases under control, so in most cases, I'll just move on.
-
[/quote]
To me, SS is leaving good money on the table by trying to guess what designers want and don't want. But as you say, each agency has its hot buttons and they are all trying to keep their swelling databases under control, so in most cases, I'll just move on.
[/quote]
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
-
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
This could not be more opposite my own experience. In nearly 5000 submissions I don't recall ever having had a LCV rejection. Very occasionally I get a rejection because they don't like where the focus is (if it is off-centre) but then I just shrink the image down a bit and it always passes next time around. The submission process at SS is also the easiest and most reliable of any agency I submit to. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone would describe them as 'most shameful'.
-
gostwyk,
I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.
Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV.
Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.
Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.
Now you are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.
So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.
I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.
I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong.
So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
-
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
This could not be more opposite my own experience. In nearly 5000 submissions I don't recall ever having had a LCV rejection. Very occasionally I get a rejection because they don't like where the focus is (if it is off-centre) but then I just shrink the image down a bit and it always passes next time around. The submission process at SS is also the easiest and most reliable of any agency I submit to. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone would describe them as 'most shameful'.
Gostwyck, if you judge based on your own experience you will miss a great deal. I can not stress enough that a segment of the SS population has very different review experience than your own and some of them produce very high end work far above the norm.
Count your blessings that the SS reviewers for your port seem to be very lenient, others are not so fortunate!
-
gostwyk,
I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.
Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV.
Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.
Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.
Now you are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.
So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.
I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.
I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong.
So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
There seems to be no rime or reason to the rejections. For years I had a very high acceptance rate on SS, close to 100%. Then suddenly it dropped to 10% and I could not get anything accepted. The rejections for Focus and LCV did not make any sense and in the case of Focus were absolutely not correct. Then suddenly for a month my acceptance rate was near 100% again, unfortunately last week I started getting the bizarre rejections again. I agree it is a crap shoot and so is guessing the reason why.
Re: "Now you are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections."
I am hearing the same thing from some very high end shooters and some of them are experiencing significant issues with the SS server and search engine bugs.