I posted this on their forum:

I would like to call for an end to the Limited Commercial Value rejection. As a contributor and buyer for many years, that specializes in isolated objects, I know what sells. I know that everyday objects, isolated, and photographed well, are much sought after. I've done very well here and on all of the top eight microstock sites selling such objects.

Within the last few months, I've been getting this rejection for the first time, even when the same photo is accepted and sells on the other top seven agencies. Obviously Shutterstock has undergone a shakeup in the reviewing process. The rejection email gives a link to Shutterbuzz, that tries to explain "the most commonly questioned reason of all for submitters" It goes on to explain that the reviewers are well trained and that they are artists and photographers themselves. Therein lies the flaw for this kind of rejection. They are not in marketing. They may well know technical merits, but not have clue as to what buyers are looking for. It's a different side of the brain. Artistry versus Marketing.

Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.

I agree with you but I don't think SS are going to change now.  This policy has been in place for a long time, despite the obvious flaw that low paid reviewers can't possibly know what will sell and what wont with a high degree of accuracy.  It's a shame that some sites aren't interested in keeping their contributors motivated to produce new images.  I'm sure rejecting more will lose them money but that's their choice.

I'm just grateful that I can use the sites that still accept most new images.  I don't get rejections with alamy and I'm supplying much more to them now.

I agree with you but I don't think SS are going to change now.  This policy has been in place for a long time...

True, but they have increased these rejections greatly in recent months, both for photos and vectors.

This is what my client wanted. Had to shoot it myself. Accepted everywhere except Shutterstock.

hehe sorry, but this one took me exactely 3 seconds on SS (searched: empty pizza pan):

That pan is fine, but it's at the wrong angle for what I needed. That's the point. You can never guess how these objects will be used.

one post was removed from this thread for coarse and rude language.  The user has also been banned for 5 days. 

hehe sorry, but this one took me exactely 3 seconds on SS (searched: empty pizza pan):

Admittedly, there are only a few though

Literally only three. So the LCV is opinion and if someone had hit Too Many Like This, it would have been a real blow-out!



Makes me wonder how many other items are unavailable?

As to the four years and delete comment, 75% of the collection at DT should be disappearing any day now. People who keep advocating elimination of the competition or purging aren't being realistic. How many pictures does each one here have, which have never sold?

People who keep advocating elimination of the competition or purging aren't being realistic. How many pictures does each one here have, which have never sold?

Why? What good do they do if they don't sell?

IMO 4 years is too long of a period. A year is more than enough. If a photo doesn't sell in a year, it's not only bad, but total garbage (could be a good photo, but in stock terms it apparently is garbage)

I really don't mind images over 4 years old being deleted, as long as it's for everyone.  Restricting what's accepted punishes people that want to produce new images.  I think that's unfair, even if it works out well for me.  I prefer having the freedom to think of something new and have it on the site and selling.  SS and DT have put me off uploading new images.  I still don't see how that benefits them, the buyers or myself.

I see, so they should accept more images that won't sell and delete the ones that are already reviewed, which took resources to get online. Also as others have pointed out, it doesn't cost much to store old images.

Somewhere people are assuming that new images, just because they are new, are somehow better than old images, when the problem is, no one knows what will sell tomorrow, which is part of the LCV argument, but then by advocating removal suddenly takes the opposite view. We still don't know if they might sell tomorrow, which is a contradiction?

I say add new images that might sell, especially when the site only has three examples.

^^^I'm sure that a lot of new images will make them more money than those that have never sold.  I don't want them to accept everything, just go back to how it was when they were more interested in the technical quality than the potential commercial value that I think is very hard to assess by their reviewers.  It must be costing them to reject images, especially when they are selling on their competitors sites.

I agree with that part, they should be accepting new images, and they have potential. There's no guarantee that something new will sell or sell better. That's all hypothetical. I disagree that old images should be purged based on date alone. And to go review them again will cost money, so it's not practical.

Just had two sales today on SS, images from Feb 2009 that have never sold before. Why, I don't know, but should they have been removed? And then people will complain because sales are down. I'm pretty sure everyone here has images that have never sold, which are downloaded each month. No it's not volume, but it does speak for buyers needs and the extended selection.

I'm saying the same reason they should take your pizza pan image, is the same reason they shouldn't just delete things that haven't sold... yet? 

Otherwise, if space and selection is a problem, then some agency should just have images that have sold in the last year, because only the good get to stay online. I bet that would bring some howling and hand wringing. "What, they deleted my pictures. How can I sell something that's not there. Other sites have it for sale..." 

the suggestion about deleting old images was ONLY meant in conjunction with acceptance based only on technical quality - basically letting the market decide.  i agree 1 year may be too soon to decide, but 4 years seems reasonable.  it's also a method that should cost very little since it can be automated

and there may be even better ways of displaying useful results from gargantuan search results

Just had two sales today on SS, images from Feb 2009 that have never sold before. Why, I don't know...

Are buyers buying more old images because most of the good new ones are being rejected? It could be.

I always get the LCV rejection on photos that I think are really good, interesting photos, but maybe not great stock. I take it as a compliment.