Author Topic: Q4 (Read 9380 times)

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2016, 11:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2016, 08:05

1 million files a week and less overall growth than library growth (30% versus 53% increase) is not a good sign for me and my little stock shop.
For the artists, this is basically negative growth or just keeping things steady if you increase your output.

if i understand what you mean by negative growth to mean you see have xxx,000 imgs port
and xxx dls. when you look at it, you cannot really be too hip hip hooray for yourself,
instead of say you have the same xxx dls with say 800 images portfolio.

if that is what you mean, than yes, i agree. i cannot see myself be so happy i can upload 3000 photos a day without review, and they may all be also without photoshop, since no one is curating my work.
by year end i will have more images than yuri, sjlocke, lisafx,dolgachov,etc.. put together.
but that still does not mean i will also be earning as much as even one of those mentioned.

to me, it's alot of work that go to waste. it's like those govt office workers who do mindless work
just for a living. it's not satisfying. but that's me ...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2016, 16:58 »

"i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "

Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......

" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2016, 18:44 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 26, 2016, 16:58

"i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "

Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......

" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."

i should clarify to repeat the quoted statement you used ... in that ... none of the credential photogs at the motorsport event mentioned , did not specifically say which agency they string for.
so pls do not think it is ss. but again, with your own repro of ss statement ..
maybe someone who is a maths-major can give a basic calculation of whether it is possible
for one reviewer to say eye-ball each photo of say the marijuana or the illustration of the icons
of those super-humans who uploaded xxxxxxxx images in one year.
is this really humanly possible to review every piece stringently.

or to extrapolate per xxxxxxxxxxx images per day , how many reviewers does ss need to really
do what they say ... we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."
[/quote]

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #28 on:** February 27, 2016, 21:43 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 26, 2016, 16:58

"i think you are both correct in this suspicion of what others will call unlevel field favourism.
because last summer at a motorsport event i remember talking with some of the credential photogs
there who also told me they are like special stringers for photo agency.
they got invited to sign some special arrangement and they submit all without review, all go straight into their portfolio instantly. "

Interesting as I believe in the last Teleconference it was stated that every image was inspected by SS .....misleading shareholders is taken quite seriously.......

" Overall, we now have over 100,000 contributors submitting content, almost 1 million pieces of content per week. And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented."

was the photo agency SS or something else. Are you saying SS has special contributors who have no review. Or someplace else does.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2016, 02:16 »

I know for a fact some agencies do it but never heard ss did. It seems unlikely, as you say they told shareholders every image is inspected. I also know some agencies offer to boost levels and improve search placement for contributors. Again I don't think ss is one of them.

robertosch · « **Reply #30 on:** February 28, 2016, 03:10 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter

Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 28, 2016, 03:53 »

Quote from: robertosch on February 28, 2016, 03:10

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter

Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...

I agree the inspection process is flawed but it doesn't mean they are not inspected.....

robertosch · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2016, 05:09 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 24, 2016, 13:46

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3925086-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-q4-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Basically it looks like business as usual .....the apocalypse is postponed but the growth in images vs incomes means we will have to pedal faster to stay in the same place......or work smarter

Wright... And as he said on page two: "And despite the significant quantity of submissions we receive daily, we still review every single piece of the content to ensure it meets the rigorous quality standards we have implemented." I really don't agree with that. A lot of junk (example: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=379512685&src=id) is added every day, I mean if you just make a regular search, you'll know what I mean exactly.
For them it is maybe a good sales increase, but for us, the contributors, is a total loss, because we are not any more visible in search, as we were before year 2015. And I am not talking about quality, I am sure we all are getting better, but about quantity...

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2016, 05:36 »

I don't actually think it is junk. Isn't it just the kind of thing some people might need and only want to pay a small fee for.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Q4 (Read 9380 times)

etudiante_rapide

Pauws99

etudiante_rapide

YadaYadaYada

Justanotherphotographer

robertosch

Pauws99

robertosch

Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors