pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Veer Holding PhotoOps, Just Like istockalypses  (Read 5010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 30, 2010, 08:03 »
0
I just got a contributor update from Veer in which it talks about how it held a PhotoOp 2010 where some photographers got to meet with Veer staff and take a bunch of pictures. In fact, Leaf (Tyler Olson) participated.

I don't know about anyone else, but this bothers me. Just like istock and the istockalypses, here is money being spent on traveling, partying and having a great time, all the while images sit in the review queue for months and sales at Veer (for some anyway) disintegrate. Mind you, I am all for the partying and traveling and having a great time, but it seems like it is all coming at the contributors and buyers' expense.

Can someone explain to me how having these functions where only people who can afford to travel and participate benefit the site or the other contributors or the buyers? Sure, I'm betting killer shots are taken and a good time is had by all, but wouldn't the money be better spent on improving the site or even more important, marketing? Feels to me like another club is being formed. One in which I will never be invited to participate in, or even be able to afford to do. <sigh>
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 08:11 by cclapper »


« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2010, 09:01 »
0
Well I have to say I'm guilty as charged ;)  I am planning a blog post on the event now that the images have been published but haven't gotten to it yet. Lee has one from just after the event however - you can check it out here.

I think this event was a smart move (and so are the istockalypses by iStock).  Not that PhotoOp and an istockalypse should/can be compared...  but I believe both events are far from being a an expense on the company's budget.  They are meant as an investment and income generator for the company.  In my opinion, by having such an event Veer is hoping to dramatically increase their exclusive content and fill holes they see in their database - making for a higher valued collection for the buyer.  Veer and most other trad. companies have always organized shoots and brought in photographers - this one is no different really, albeit it was organized slightly different than their other shoots (it seems) and is targeted primarily towards the midstock market.  But Veer producing a stock shoot is nothing new.  Their fancy collection is a large collection of images they produced.

So anyhow, my point is that I think this event was a smart move on Veer's part, and I would certainly attend again if given the chance.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 09:07 by leaf »

« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2010, 09:34 »
0
Of course they are meant to be an investment and income generator for the company. But to say they are far from being an expense? Of course they are an expense! The company is gambling on the fact that it will make money back from the sale of the photos you all took (and likely it will), but it's still an expense. Again, it benefits the company and the small group of select photographers who participated.

I guess I just need to accept that the whole "community" spirit has disappeared from microstock and corporate think and greed has taken over. Those who can afford to play the game, win. The rest of the folks just trying to make a buck are S-O-L. I'm really not surprised, istock pretty much has prepared us for all of this.

« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2010, 09:36 »
0
I must admit when I saw Lee's post about this (and again in their newsletter) my reaction was similar to cclappers. I also will admit that some of that is due to jealousy.

It does appear to be some sort of "in" club sort of thing - one of the many annoyances at IS.

Still, it might be a smart business move on Veer's part and I am guessing the amount of $ spent on this sort of thing pales compared to some others.

« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2010, 09:47 »
0
Of course they are meant to be an investment and income generator for the company. But to say they are far from being an expense? Of course they are an expense! The company is gambling on the fact that it will make money back from the sale of the photos you all took (and likely it will), but it's still an expense. Again, it benefits the company and the small group of select photographers who participated.


Ok, point taken.  I agree it was an expense and a very large one at that.  I just felt you were saying they were wasting their money on a shoot like this when it could better be spent on advertising (for example).  I feel investing money on a shoot like this will create more revenue which then can be spent on an even larger advertising budget. ...  I think increasing the quality of their collection should benefit everyone.

helix7

« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2010, 09:48 »
0
I don't fault Veer for spending some money on events like this, especially when there is a fairly clear goal in mind and the company stands to benefit greatly by expanding the exclusive collection with images that they can basically art direct  by organizing the locations, models, sets, etc. And when a company like Veer does it, I'm less inclined to take issue with them.

istock, on the other hand, shouldn't be spending money they claim they don't have on things like this. Remember, istock is the company that's saying they can't afford to pay us our old rates any more, and that their business model is unsustainable. Meanwhile they keep hosting events, awards, etc.

If Veer can keep up their rates and still afford to host events, good for them. The minute that changes, though, stuff like PhotoOps should be cut from the budget.

« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2010, 09:58 »
0
It's a good business move for both Veer and iStock. Both company should have more of these events.

« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2010, 10:09 »
0
Wouldn't spending the money on reviewers, to get new photos through the q much faster, benefit even more contributors, buyers AND the company? That's just not me being jealous or dishing out sour grapes, that complaint comes from a lot of contributors, big and small.

Just sayin.

« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2010, 10:15 »
0
Wouldn't spending the money on reviewers, to get new photos through the q much faster, benefit even more contributors, buyers AND the company? That's just not me being jealous or dishing out sour grapes, that complaint comes from a lot of contributors, big and small.

Just sayin.

More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2010, 10:42 »
0

More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

Thomas, since you don't contribute to Veer, being exclusive to Istock, you may not realize that the wait to get any images approved there has stretched into months.  This is unprecedented in microstock.  It's not unreasonable for contributors waiting months to get images reviewed (many of them extremely saleable lifestyle, not just objects isolated on white) to wonder if their priorities are a bit out of whack.  

I guess I just need to accept that the whole "community" spirit has disappeared from microstock and corporate think and greed has taken over. Those who can afford to play the game, win. The rest of the folks just trying to make a buck are S-O-L. I'm really not surprised, istock pretty much has prepared us for all of this.

I am in the same boat as you Cathy.  The community aspect of microstock was one of the positive trade-offs for taking such low commissions.  Now the community has eroded but the commissions haven't risen to keep pace.  It's taking me some time to adjust to the new reality.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2010, 10:52 »
0
Quote by Lee Torrens  "The primary goal of the shoot was to quickly generate a large volume of images to drive up the quality of photos in the Veer microstock offering."

I don't quite understand this when there are thousands of photos sitting and waiting to be approved. I'm sure there are lots of quality photos already there which would probably cover much of the demand.

« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2010, 10:54 »
0

More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

Thomas, since you don't contribute to Veer, being exclusive to Istock, you may not realize that the wait to get any images approved there has stretched into months.  This is unprecedented in microstock.  It's not unreasonable for contributors waiting months to get images reviewed (many of them extremely saleable lifestyle, not just objects isolated on white) to wonder if their priorities are a bit out of whack.

I'm with you, Lisa.  On the one hand, the PhotoOps benefit only a tiny fraction of Veer's content providers.  On the other, we have images waiting six weeks for review and upload quotas so low that we'll never get our existing portfolios online.  Only iStock has lower quotas.  

Quote
I guess I just need to accept that the whole "community" spirit has disappeared from microstock and corporate think and greed has taken over. Those who can afford to play the game, win. The rest of the folks just trying to make a buck are S-O-L. I'm really not surprised, istock pretty much has prepared us for all of this.

I am in the same boat as you Cathy.  The community aspect of microstock was one of the positive trade-offs for taking such low commissions.  Now the community has eroded but the commissions haven't risen to keep pace.  It's taking me some time to adjust to the new reality.

I can't help feeling that some of us overestimated the cohesion of that community.  iStock's always struck me as cultish.  I only was active in the Shutterstock forums, but haven't been more than an occasional visitor for ages.  Still, most people in microstock act in a supportive fashion to their competitors.  Those that don't, well, liberal use of the Ignore button helps.

« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2010, 11:09 »
0
snip
I can't help feeling that some of us overestimated the cohesion of that community.  iStock's always struck me as cultish.  I only was active in the Shutterstock forums, but haven't been more than an occasional visitor for ages.  Still, most people in microstock act in a supportive fashion to their competitors.  Those that don't, well, liberal use of the Ignore button helps.

Yes, istock turned cultish but it wasn't that way to begin with, when I started with microstock. Or maybe it was and I have been deluding myself all along  ::).

I believe there WAS cohesion, until microstock exploded, big business stepped in, and has now separated the wheat from the chaff, thereby eroding the cohesion. Coupled with the fact that there are now millions of photographers contributing, it was bound to turn into an "us versus them" all out competition.

« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2010, 11:14 »
0
More isolated on white shots? No these are a win-win for both the contributors and the companies.  Also must say the way Veer went about it was much better then istock.

I don't understand why you are putting isolated on white shots down. There must be a reason why there are so many of them and they keep getting accepted. Maybe because they sell?

« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2010, 12:07 »
0
Isolated on white shots might rarely be "artistic", but I am sure they sell from time to time, and they should be easy to exclude from a search. As far as how a company could go about getting the images they want up for sale as fast as they can, I am guessing that figuring out which photographers supply those pics and review them quickly would be the best way. As long as the agencies don't drop our percentages, I am willing to give them a lot of leeway in setting upload limits based on acceptance or sales % or whatever else they feel makes the most sense. If it is based on who their their buddies are I am less happy about that.

« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2010, 12:21 »
0
snip
I can't help feeling that some of us overestimated the cohesion of that community.  iStock's always struck me as cultish.  I only was active in the Shutterstock forums, but haven't been more than an occasional visitor for ages.  Still, most people in microstock act in a supportive fashion to their competitors.  Those that don't, well, liberal use of the Ignore button helps.

Yes, istock turned cultish but it wasn't that way to begin with, when I started with microstock. Or maybe it was and I have been deluding myself all along  ::).

It's a fair question.  Back in 2006 when I got semiserious about this stuff, I spent a lot of time in the Shutterstock forums.  I spent a lot less time at iStock.  It felt more cultish (where never is heard a discouraging word) and more insular, and of course there was that feeling even from the beginning that the company was taking too large a share.  So I can't help wondering how much has really changed vs. how much we changed our perception.

« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2010, 12:32 »
0
I remember i read that blog on microstockdiaries sometimes ago, i didn't really think there is something wrong about it, it is the faster way to get exclusive good quality images.

I am even fine i am not invited, because i know i am not good enough yet. It is good veer try to do something instead of just getting all same images from everyone. In the end it will only becomes a dead slow sites or just another $0.25 per dls.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 12:40 by mtkang »

« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2010, 12:43 »
0
Wouldn't spending the money on reviewers, to get new photos through the q much faster, benefit even more contributors, buyers AND the company? That's just not me being jealous or dishing out sour grapes, that complaint comes from a lot of contributors, big and small.

Just sayin.

I hear you. Especially, since I'm not even remotely interested in photography. I think it comes back to that question of, "Is this agency representing your interests?"


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
4257 Views
Last post November 21, 2008, 14:59
by grp_photo
64 Replies
18330 Views
Last post February 05, 2010, 08:50
by PenelopeB
57 Replies
21799 Views
Last post January 29, 2012, 03:55
by jm
17 Replies
3450 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 03:51
by sharpshot
490 Replies
61565 Views
Last post December 04, 2013, 09:37
by StockPhotosArt.com

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle