Agency Based Discussion > Zymmetrical.com
It Costs Large Sums Of Money To Reject My Files
Allen:
I just got this email from Keith at zymmetrical.com
***
Hi Richard,
You have an abnormally high rejection rate, and you seem to just have us on auto-FTP, sending more of the same each month - our reviewers pay careful attention to each review, and we expect the participating artists to heed those comments.
I am sorry if this may come off harsh but it costs large sums of money to be rejecting your files when that money could be put into growing the business. We have no upload limits, very high commissions, and generally relaxed terms - we rely on the artists to play fair and participate in good faith: just uploading whatever thousands of shots you've made each month is unsustainable. The 150 or so you have approved are marketable, but since rejection rates affect search positioning to a degree, you are shooting yourself in the foot by just carpet-bombing the uploads. We are completely open to help you not have to spend too much time on deciding what to upload, you just have to ask - in the meantime, it cannot continue with this rejection ratio.
Best Regards,
Keith Tuomi
***
It is true, it must cost a lot of money to reject my pics. So far I have 1593 pictures rejected there and only 154 approved.
I have a 78.5% acceptance rate at dreamstime which is climbing as it was the first months that brought the average down. The last 5 months there I have maintained more than 90% acceptance average with about 200 pictures added every month.
Istock, Shutterstock, Fotolia are all very similar. I haven't seen a rejection from Stockxpert in ages.
Heck, even Crestock accepts more of my images.
All is not lost though, the most popular rejection reason given is composition and lighting. Although I'm not too sure how an isolated object on white gets a composition rejection. Anyways, if all the sites had similar complaints about me, then perhaps I would pay more heed to this email.
I know I am not a top seller, but I do try and learn. But with rejections like this and from only the one website, it makes it difficult.
Thanks for listening, and any comments or criticism about my post or portfolio not a problem.
p.s. Keith will not have to worry about paying people to reject my pictures for a while. I won't say that I am done with them, but surely I will take a break and ask him to delete all my photos in the pending queue, to be sure he gets only my best and newest.
Magnum:
You have the quality and the quantity. Maybe needs a little of that third thing, whatever it is. Imagine if all of us would submitt like you. it, your a photomachine... ;)
Oops, I tried to write dam(*) it, but it was automatical removed :D
RGebbiePhoto:
--- Quote from: dragon_fang on March 12, 2009, 12:38 ---... to be sure he gets only my best and newest.
--- End quote ---
That's all they are asking for, I believe. Not all sites agree on what a marketable image is. They mass rejected almost our entire first batch, so I figured they didn't appreciate our style of shooting, and that's fair. It's their company, it's up to them to decide what "marketable" is.
By the way, I left our 20-ish images online there, no reason to pull them, if they feel they are marketable, then I should be able to use those as my little sample. So far, (surprise) no sales. Will I start uploading there again? It's possible, Zym seems to be quite willing to get involved in the community, and that's always a positive thing. But they won't get our first runs. I need to put those on the sites that appreciate the way we shoot first, because that's where we sell.
Gebbie
melastmohican:
Until somebody invents non-subjective means of reviewing photographs it always be like that. I stopped wondering why I got image sold one site and rejected on the other. It's just a way it is and I got better things to do that trying to figure it out.
All these start-ups expect that only greatest photographers would enroll so they would have easy job selling their works. Reality is that these guys already are selling on other well established sites and they do not care about another low earning one. So it's catch 22, they are not getting greatest images until they really take off and they cannot take off since they are rejecting everything else and do not have enough to attract potential buyers.
sharpshot:
--- Quote from: dragon_fang on March 12, 2009, 12:38 ---....It is true, it must cost a lot of money to reject my pics. So far I have 1593 pictures rejected there and only 154 approved.
--- End quote ---
I wouldn't bother uploading more if they rejected that many of mine. They sometimes spot problems with photos that istock don't notice, so their reviews are strict. As they sell for higher prices than most of the micros, I don't mind them being strict.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version