MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Approval Frustrations  (Read 11874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2015, 05:27 »
+4
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.


I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.


Lets take a look at the new content coming in these days using the commonly used keyword food.  www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=food&sort_method=newest&page=1

As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 05:32 by gbalex »


« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2015, 05:39 »
0
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... :-\


« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2015, 05:58 »
+3
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... :-\

Completely agree

« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2015, 07:01 »
+6
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.


I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.


Lets take a look at the new content coming in these days using the commonly used keyword food.  www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=food&sort_method=newest&page=1

As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.


Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the link you provided, looked randomly at around 10 different portfolios (I clicked on some more images, but several were from the same contributor).
Out of these portfolios one was from 2015, one from 2014, the others from 2008 - 2012. Some of them with 10.000 - 40.000 images.

Not exactly the same as you experienced.

I do have the same issues with inconsistent and strange rejections lately, so I fully agree there is something wrong with the review process. But I don't believe the explanation is so simple (that strange rejections are only an issue for established portfolios and that they are only done to promote "cheaper" content). I think it's rather an issue of Shutterstock not training and controlling their reviewers good enough - because that would cost money and they don't believe they lose too much by not investing that money.

« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2015, 07:44 »
0
Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 07:47 by gbalex »

« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2015, 08:10 »
+2
Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.

So you're saying the lowest quality new submissions do come from new contributors?
That's not really a surprise. And does not prove anything else.

« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2015, 09:01 »
0
Try looking at more than one page, I looked at aprox 30/40 pages and picked the lowest quality content and quality from each page.

So you're saying the lowest quality new submissions do come from new contributors?
That's not really a surprise. And does not prove anything else.

No it is not rocket science, my images were not so hot when I started submitting. What I was speaking to, is the fact that shutterstock routinely accepts LCV images with questionable image quality.

And they also routinely reject images of much higher quality. The review process has issues and shutterstock chooses ignore this. We know why they want new contributors and it is understandable they would not want to discourage new contributors with high rejection rates.

However for those who are experiencing poor reviews, the inequities found in the review process must be discouraging.

FlowerPower

« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2015, 09:22 »
0
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.

I'm in and making more sales then many other low earners got me in a year. Some reveiwers are just rejecting everything others not rejecting things that should be. You can't judge the whole review system by the extremes or some flawed reviews.

« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2015, 07:26 »
0

 
I wonder how new photographers are able to get into SS with such high rejection rates. It's extremely hard to get 7/10 images approved these days.
 

 
 I think its because they want newbie content because they pay less commission.
 

 
 
 No, they want the content that they want
 

 
 You upload 3D figures right? nice work btw, must take a lot of time. Something that is rare (I think) on stock but do you actually sell them well? No use in having a niche and brag about no rejections if it won't sell. ART has it's own place in the market and it isn't microstock. That is exactly why you don't get rejections in the first place, reviewers see no competition in you, same with the weed guy.
 "THEY" is not the agency, "THEY" are the reviewers and they seem to be on an agenda of their own. Do you think the agency wants 10k images of weed in one portfolio? not to mention the other LCV "niches"?
 I rarely get rejections anymore on SS but that doesn't make me blind either. HCV images getting rejected to make room for LCV?
 
 http://www.microstockgroup.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif


Actually they sell just ok, not near as well as the folks that are really professional / successful but probably a lot better than equivalent standard photos and you are 100% correct that my acceptance rate is most likely because Im doing material with less competition.  Not bragging BTW, just stating facts.
The thing is that you are completely missing the point as to what constitutes HCV / LCV for the agencies.  If one of my images sell 100 times it means the agency probably gets 70 sales they wouldnt have got otherwise.  Another guy may get 10,000 sales with something more mainstream (HCV for the contributor) but, if the image wasnt there, the agency would probably still get the 10,000 sales because there are tons of very similar alternatives available (so LCV for the agency).
At the end of the day, its all about supply and demand. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2015, 08:02 »
0
I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... :-\
It's hardly surprising:
1. Buyers want bargains.
2. Sites heavily promote subs; they want to lock in buyers so that they have a guaranteed income going forward.

Hongover

« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2015, 11:01 »
0
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... :-\

Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

memakephoto

« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2015, 12:24 »
+1
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses.... :-\

Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

Complete nonsense.

Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.

Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.

Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.

« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2015, 13:03 »
+3

 
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.
 

 
 You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses....http://www.microstockgroup.com/Smileys/default/undecided.gif

 
 Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.
 

 
 Complete nonsense.
 
 Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.
 
 Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.
 
 Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.
 

Obviously, the fact that buyers do not use their quota (not a dirty secret but a well known fact) forms part of the pricing calculation and the resulting consistent revenue.  On what planet does your point in any way counter what hongover said  even without the condescending noobie" comment?

memakephoto

« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2015, 13:17 »
+1

 
Quote
Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.
 

 
 You have right. But, also, I think we need also to ask why sales are dropping and, for all microstock sites, why there are so many subs than other types of licenses....http://www.microstockgroup.com/Smileys/default/undecided.gif

 
 Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.
 

 
 Complete nonsense.
 
 Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.
 
 Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.
 
 Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.
 

Obviously, the fact that buyers do not use their quota (not a dirty secret but a well known fact) forms part of the pricing calculation and the resulting consistent revenue.  On what planet does your point in any way counter what hongover said  even without the condescending noobie" comment?


Condescension was the point. Have you read any of his posts?

To be serious, his point seemed to be that agencies push subscriptions for consistent revenue. Anyone who's ever been in business knows there is no such thing when you sell any kind of product. That's the risk of being in business. Otherwise there would be no need to advertise and most of the microstock business would dry up. Just sell a subscription for something and stable income is sure to follow. That's fantasy.

I realize that the true value of subscription sales is not a secret to anyone who's been in the industry for more than a few months but obviously it's still a secret to some.

« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2015, 13:29 »
0
As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

i had the same impression when i went to ss forum to see them cheering on their latest sales ...
most what sjlocke call (in the other thread here) as " .... pictures that won't sell ". i can't remember sean's exact words but those are exactly the pictures that are on those pages of cheering for their latest sales. no doubt newbies too.

back to your final statement. i too cannot figure out why LCV from newbies are getting in while many experienced images are being mass rejected (not my words, but according to the thread here and in ss forum).

only thing i can draw comparision is someone is letting in alot of their friends or children cousins cousins...   a long time ago, in the days of govt service nepotism heydays before the crash ,
the same thing flooded the offices . many graduates and mid managers were laid-off to be replaced by absolute morons to run the govt offices.  it still going on, in fact , in brasil, there is a custom where you keep your 4,5 surnames to identity yourself and get hired in the govt office. not by merit but by surnames.

this is the only possible explanation i can give for ss letting in LCV from newbies while rejecting many experienced work as OOF and wrong WB.  shareholders speak loud , as they say, money talks and bs walks.

what do you think, gbalex? any other possible explanation why suddenly my colleagues have developed disability to WB and focus properly???

Hongover

« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2015, 16:14 »
0
Every company wants consistency revenue, especially a public one. On demand and single downloads are unstable and inconsistent, so they actively encourage subscriptions. Imagine if you have customers who pays you a monthly fee to pay to use your images and you acquire new customers every month. Your revenue graph would have no dips...just a consistent curve upward.

Complete nonsense.

Agencies still have to pay subscription royalties to contributors which means the amount of money they make from a subscription depends on how much of the subscription the buyer uses during the month. Which is unpredictable and creates the little dips in your revenue graph.

Every company that sells products or services of any kind, public or not, is at the mercy of buyer demand. That is susceptible to economic variations, seasonal variations, trends, and about ten thousand other factors. Luckily when you market on an international level to millions of users it smooths out the dips.

Subscriptions are popular with agencies not because of some noobie notion of consistent revenue, but because of the dirty little secret which is that any portion of the subscription that goes unused by the end of the month goes into the agency's pocket. Since very few subscription buyers use the entire subscription quota, the agency gets a lot of extra cash. They tend to like that little perk.

My previous post was hardly condescending. I think the tables have turned my friend. The dirty little secret is hardly a secret. When I had a personal subscription on SS, I made it a point to download 25 images per day to maximize my value and cancelled my account before the end of the month so they didn't charge me again. My company subscription on the other hand download 1-3 images a day, allowing SS to pocket the rest on a consistent monthly basis.

Plenty of companies in Silicon Valley use that revenue model because the dips are hardly noticeable, and each new customer makes it invisible. The only thing they have to worry about is churn, which cause real visible dips on the graph.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2015, 17:10 by Hongover »

« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2015, 17:06 »
+3
As you can see the shutterstock reviewers are consistently letting in plenty of LCV images with questionable content and quality. I opened around 30 of these new images and then navigated to the photographers portfolios. Without exception they were all new contributors who had started submitting in 2015.

Now back to the review issue, with content like that coming in and much better content and quality being rejected everyday, we really need to ask what is wrong with the review process.

i had the same impression when i went to ss forum to see them cheering on their latest sales ...
most what sjlocke call (in the other thread here) as " .... pictures that won't sell ". i can't remember sean's exact words but those are exactly the pictures that are on those pages of cheering for their latest sales. no doubt newbies too.

back to your final statement. i too cannot figure out why LCV from newbies are getting in while many experienced images are being mass rejected (not my words, but according to the thread here and in ss forum).

only thing i can draw comparision is someone is letting in alot of their friends or children cousins cousins...   a long time ago, in the days of govt service nepotism heydays before the crash ,
the same thing flooded the offices . many graduates and mid managers were laid-off to be replaced by absolute morons to run the govt offices.  it still going on, in fact , in brasil, there is a custom where you keep your 4,5 surnames to identity yourself and get hired in the govt office. not by merit but by surnames.

this is the only possible explanation i can give for ss letting in LCV from newbies while rejecting many experienced work as OOF and wrong WB.  shareholders speak loud , as they say, money talks and bs walks.

what do you think, gbalex? any other possible explanation why suddenly my colleagues have developed disability to WB and focus properly???


Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen.  Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.


« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2015, 20:15 »
+2
Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen.  Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.

correction . conspiracy is when one person use the word many folks and incoherent in the same paragraph , while still pretending he did not see how many pages were in shutterstock forum re this issue.

many pages of complaints on both shutterstock and here re the review process is not conspiracy theory, it's  evidence.

get your fact straight.

« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2015, 05:52 »
+1

 Again with the "newbies" - I have to say this is as incoherent a post as I've seen.  Many folks have offered explanations for the review process but we still have this paranoid insistence on conspiracy theories from those (oldies???) who have some unfounded sense that anything meeting a certain technical standard should be accepted.
 

 correction . conspiracy is when one person use the word many folks and incoherent in the same paragraph , while still pretending he did not see how many pages were in shutterstock forum re this issue.
 
 many pages of complaints on both shutterstock and here re the review process is not conspiracy theory, it's  evidence.
 
 get your fact straight.
 
The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work.  The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous.  The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that newbies are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that? 
What the evidence does suggest is that technical quality is no longer a guarantee of acceptance at SS.  They do need to clarify what material the do want and to make the rejections reasons more realistic as, clearly, white balance and focus are not the reasons.

« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2015, 10:34 »
+1
The reviews are incredibly inconsistent. Nothing to do with reasons needing work. They worked fine up untill this whole inconsistency started.

« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2015, 10:56 »
+1
The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work.  The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous.  The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that newbies are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that?

the evidence that 38cts earners suddenly find their port earning drop by 40% and approval drop the same with mass-rejections of unjustified reasons of WB,focus is not where we think it should be...
imagine suddenly all these 38 centers forgot how to make photos for stock after some 5 to 10 or even more in micro.
favoring newbie is ridiculous you say?  do your arithmetic,... take the number of new images multiply for 6 cents commission . this is not ridiculous, it's less money paid out to the newbies
and the shifting of search images of top sellers all account to the bottom line.
it's done all the time before the big sell-off like istock before they sold out their best contributors and pushed their top selling exlcusives away.

why add numbers with newbies cheering for them, you say? it's much like landlords prior to dumping their buildings needing an overhaul of plumbing, balcony, stairs,etc... filling their apartments so it looks like there is always full tenancy.
it's the dirty business that go past ppl like you who thinks the world is fine and  nothing is missing  with your coffee  like those exclusives for istock who did the same until the bottom fell out 8)

Hongover

« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2015, 12:41 »
0
The only evidence is that there are complaints and that the rejection reasons need work.  The idea that there are rogue reviewer tails wagging the corporate dog is ridiculous.  The idea that folks get accepted because the know someone or that newbies are favoured is equally ridiculous, why would they do that?

the evidence that 38cts earners suddenly find their port earning drop by 40% and approval drop the same with mass-rejections of unjustified reasons of WB,focus is not where we think it should be...
imagine suddenly all these 38 centers forgot how to make photos for stock after some 5 to 10 or even more in micro.
favoring newbie is ridiculous you say?  do your arithmetic,... take the number of new images multiply for 6 cents commission . this is not ridiculous, it's less money paid out to the newbies
and the shifting of search images of top sellers all account to the bottom line.
it's done all the time before the big sell-off like istock before they sold out their best contributors and pushed their top selling exlcusives away.

why add numbers with newbies cheering for them, you say? it's much like landlords prior to dumping their buildings needing an overhaul of plumbing, balcony, stairs,etc... filling their apartments so it looks like there is always full tenancy.
it's the dirty business that go past ppl like you who thinks the world is fine and  nothing is missing  with your coffee  like those exclusives for istock who did the same until the bottom fell out 8)

I had 6 of my 7 photo submissions rejected recently, so it's across the board for everyone. SS's image technical standards are getting higher right before our eyes. Server cost isn't cheap when you're at SS's size. They cost millions a year to maintain.

Admittedly, I can't say I'm surprised by the rejections because my camera is old. Despite that fact that it's at 20 Megapixel, the sensor isn't big enough and I don't have a very good lens. Many new contributors have new cameras and I know for a fact they have a better one than mine.

Almost everyone's earnings fall in a saturated market. We can't expect earnings to keep consistent as more and more competitors jump into the market. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2015, 12:53 by Hongover »

« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2015, 12:54 »
0
So...


1. Virtually anyone who has done this for a few years has seen a drop in RPI - good old supply & demand
2. As I and many others have said, it's pretty clear that focus, WB etc is not the issue - points made about communication, better reject reasons etc.
3. Complaints about rejections are not limited to 38c shooters, in fact, they are probably a minority,
4. Most of the big guns don't seem to have a problem - presumably they are adapting by either doing different material or, from what I can see, doing something fresh and original with the more trad stock subjects.




« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2015, 13:24 »
+3
Quote
Admittedly, I can't say I'm surprised by the rejections because my camera is old. Despite that fact that it's at 20 Megapixel, the sensor isn't big enough and I don't have a very good lens. Many new contributors have new cameras and I know for a fact they have a better one than mine.

Poppycock! If you took the time to read all rejection posts, you would learn that many unjustified rejections are dished out even to experienced photographers who shoot with 5Ds, 810's and expensive prime lenses in a studio from steady tripods and triggered by remotes.
The image quality is definitely not the culprit.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4136 Views
Last post May 02, 2006, 04:01
by leaf
19 Replies
7460 Views
Last post May 03, 2006, 15:57
by GeoPappas
27 Replies
9837 Views
Last post December 31, 2007, 12:36
by Beckyabell
66 Replies
20502 Views
Last post April 12, 2013, 19:39
by fritz
1 Replies
2269 Views
Last post November 03, 2013, 13:03
by noodle

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle