Author Topic: weekly 1 million images vs crap (Read 13297 times)

Artist · « **on:** March 01, 2017, 12:24 »

One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

Photodune Reject · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2017, 12:27 »

Now you know why Shutterstock stock prices did so poorly! They are their worse enemy! We have told them a million times on what they are doing wrong but they never listen to us lowly artists...

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2017, 12:39 »

Correct. I wonder how many people complaining that every subject has been covered have ever tried to shop for stock images. I struggle every time. The problem is that only generic stuff has any chance of making sales in enough volume to be profitable for the photographer or illustrator. There's a big chunk of the market not being served.

stockastic · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2017, 12:55 »

It's the final stages of death caused by "one size fits all" pricing. There's no longer any reason to submit high quality work unless it can make a huge number of sales. With no relationship between sale price and cost of production, it can't work, except for a very narrow range of contributors.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:15 »

you need to look at premium content.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:21 »

i think they are more like istock though, look at this on the front page

Quote

Great stories start here.
Discover over 100 million pieces of amazing content.

and then this, brand new images

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:24 »

derek · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:43 »

This is the SS problem!and as said above they have been infomed a million times. I am sure many buyers are dodging SS right now its just too many files. Who wants to sit there wading through all that.

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:54 »

No problem, I'm sure their advanced AI research will soon result in a search engine that recognizes true quality, and junk like this will be filtered out. If you mention "AI" in your marketing enough times, that means it's real - isn't that how it works today?

jonbull · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2017, 13:59 »

Quote from: Artist on March 01, 2017, 12:24

One of my client today asked me to select few images from shutterstock, he gave me the topic but when I started to search, I found maximum images are just crap.
I searched over 150 newest pages and nearly 80% of the content is useless. There are few users who are uploading thousands of similar style images just covering the whole search making it difficult to find the good content.

Edit: I must say 90% item is useless.. still working to get the good collection

i completely agree...in my opinion if somebody makes a serious agency with old style quality, much less content, super search engine and tight tolerances of keyword, it wil be a bang right now.

jonbull · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2017, 14:01 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 01, 2017, 12:39

Correct. I wonder how many people complaining that every subject has been covered have ever tried to shop for stock images. I struggle every time. The problem is that only generic stuff has any chance of making sales in enough volume to be profitable for the photographer or illustrator. There's a big chunk of the market not being served.

i agree. i make mostly travel in micro and macro. what surprises me is de fat the in micro for any destination 99% are just landmark.
because most of micro are hobbits who travel in most common countries

angelawaye · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2017, 14:03 »

Let me guess, your client gave you a $10 max budget for photos. You need to look at the better sites now... You won't have to sort through crap (which is your time, which is money).

cathyslife · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2017, 14:59 »

Quote from: angelawaye on March 01, 2017, 14:03

Let me guess, your client gave you a $10 max budget for photos. You need to look at the better sites now... You won't have to sort through crap (which is your time, which is money).

You bring up a good point. Buying "premium" content on a client's oft-times small budget doesnt work either. I stopped buying at SS because of the whole crap-wading problem and went elsewhere, where the wading problem isnt quite as bad (yet).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:34 »

Quote from: Photodune Reject on March 01, 2017, 12:27

Now you know why Shutterstock stock prices did so poorly! They are their worse enemy! We have told them a million times on what they are doing wrong but they never listen to us lowly artists...

As far as I can tell investors are (or were) lapping up the idea of more and more content means better now that sales growth is slowing perhaps they will start to dig a bit deeper. Sometimes large corporations don't see the blindingly obvious.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:35 »

Quote from: jonbull on March 01, 2017, 14:01

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 01, 2017, 12:39
Correct. I wonder how many people complaining that every subject has been covered have ever tried to shop for stock images. I struggle every time. The problem is that only generic stuff has any chance of making sales in enough volume to be profitable for the photographer or illustrator. There's a big chunk of the market not being served.

i agree. i make mostly travel in micro and macro. what surprises me is de fat the in micro for any destination 99% are just landmark.
because most of micro are hobbits who travel in most common countries

Even for landmarks its surprising often how few pictures there are from less obvious perspectives.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:48 »

i remember not long ago really, 2012 2013, when you searched the site, you really did see amazing work when searching for images, i was always in awe and felt i had to up my game, if you look now, you kind of feel embarrassed to be part of it

dpimborough · « **Reply #16 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:51 »

This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 01, 2017, 15:57 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51

This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company

I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.

Brightontl · « **Reply #18 on:** March 01, 2017, 16:30 »

Welcome to the Dollar shop sir.
No, we really apologize, but you cannot buy here the gold Rolex watch you are looking for

angelawaye · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2017, 16:30 »

Once they accepted 1/10 to get in that was the beginning of the end.

noodle · « **Reply #20 on:** March 01, 2017, 16:50 »

Part of the problem is accointability to shareholders for SS

You see, investors want to see numbers goong up and up - they know nothing about the micro business, but saying that a collection is growing quarter after quarter will sound like " more opportunity to make money" just from sheer size of collection.

SS was a well r un business before going public - now evrything is putting the squeeze on contributers _ from collection size, to virtually no ELs and very very few SoDs

Everything is against us

dragonblade · « **Reply #21 on:** March 01, 2017, 18:20 »

I'm a contributor to SS, not a buyer. Though once in a while, I'll so a search on the site with a random keyword just to see what comes up. Generally, I find good quality images adhering to a high standard or maybe I'm just lucky. I was surprised to see those three poor images posted above - assuming they're from SS's collection? In my view, those particular photos should never be accepted as stock (or any other commercial image use.) I do agree that SS accepting 1 out of 10 photos for newcomers is a bad move and will lead to an accumulation of junk images.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2017, 01:54 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.

I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2017, 02:32 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 02, 2017, 01:54

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.
I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

H'mm maybe i've been taken it by the talk...they SAY they are totally rewriting the platform and innovating etc. but I must admit apart from reshuffilng the dashboard the site looks exactly the same for contributors.

derek · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2017, 03:06 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 02, 2017, 01:54

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 01, 2017, 15:57
Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 01, 2017, 15:51
This is what happens when inertia and poor management really get in to a company
I'm not so sure its inertia so much as going down the wrong path with all that techo gobbledygook about platforms, workflow blah blah rather than worrying about how to deliver great pictures to their customers as easily as possible. If it weren't for the competition being worse they'd be in bigger trouble...don;t forget they are still growing.
I actually think it is the opposite. Rather than innovating and finding new ways to serve the market they have concentrated on just adding new images so they can brag about the size of growth. Or maybe they have done both but the flood of image is drowning out any improvements.

Yes well this time it looks as if they have been bragging once to much. Stocks well down, takings down and a lousy 57% in the right column. Seems it all goes the Istock way. Unfortunately.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: weekly 1 million images vs crap (Read 13297 times)

Artist

Photodune Reject

Justanotherphotographer

stockastic

Microstockphoto

Microstockphoto

Microstockphoto

derek

stockastic

jonbull

jonbull

angelawaye

cathyslife

Pauws99

Pauws99

Microstockphoto

dpimborough

Pauws99

Brightontl

angelawaye

noodle

dragonblade

Justanotherphotographer

Pauws99

derek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors