pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Waste of time?  (Read 16484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2008, 12:37 »
0


RT


« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2008, 12:38 »
0
Yes of course.

Keith....  one question, please....  is Mr. P. Melcher still associated with your organization? 8)=tom

I think the reason for Tom's question is the recent blog by P.Melcher and his low opinion on anybody that shoots for stock, if you haven't read it you should, I laughed my head off when I found out the same guy has been involved in running stock agencies.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2008, 13:16 »
0
I really do not have much time to read blogs, including the dubious task of 'looking for a controversial post on Paul's blog'. It'd take up most of the day i'm sure.    8)     

Of course I must look now: if you mean the second latest post there, I think you may to need to re-read if you find it offensive as a 'microstocker' - made more sense on the second scan-through for me. At any rate, why not comment on it and prove him wrong, if it's fired you up a bit? 

« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2008, 14:17 »
0
Could someone post a link to the blog in question please?

« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2008, 14:28 »
0
Hi,

Aka Tom and others that read my blog.
 If you read it well, it is intended at traditional pro stock shooters, and not at Micro stock shooters. Obviously, I would not have entered this business if I thought all shooters should rethink their strategies.
What you should consider funnier is when traditional pro stock shooters are begging microstock agencies to raise their prices dramatically in order to save their income.
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/can-intervention-save-the-stock-photography-industry-from-microstock.html
It is a pathetic attempt to preserve the "gentleman club" that stock used to be.
Our sales, our traffic and our company otherwise, is doing very well. so much so that we now have photo agencies contacting us to be part of our offering. They appreciate that they can be part of the same search with different pricing point and that image buyers can decide for themselves what image they like, regardless of its cost.
It is not "all for $1" or "all for $500" but a very wide range of options.
Buyers like to be able to pick and choose between pro and non pros, compare and shop, all from one location.
Indeed, we are not on the top 6. Not yet.  We do not promise anything that we cannot deliver. We have taken the slow and prudent growth rather than the "mutli million investors" cash and burn model that so many have failed before. It might take some time to reach the top of the ladder, but neither Keith nor I have any doubts that we will make it.
We both remain available for any suggestions, comments and criticisms. anytime.

« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2008, 15:57 »
0
I  am aware that this site has HIGH standards, but I think as a small site they are way too restrictive.  I uploaded 7 shots that were all good sellers elsewhere, and all 7 were rejected as not up to their quality.  I just checked on those 7 images at the Big 6 sites that have approved them, and each has sold 10 or more times.

I doubt if they will last if they turn away decent content on a daily basis.......and I have not recommended the site to anyone for that very reason.

RT


« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2008, 16:00 »
0
Hi Keith and Paul,

The blog hasn't got me fired up, far from it, some parts of it I agree with, what made me laugh was when I found out who the author was, I must be honest I'm surprised for such a strong opinion from somebody heading up a stock agency.

You are right about the "gentlemens club" persona that some want to maintain, but it's my experience that these are not the one's that pose a threat to anybody other than themselves.

I do think though that your tone will offend many very professional pro photographers that have been aware of microstock and have been contributing for a long time, I also think your stance on those that shoot stock because they can't get clients is way way off track and in a lot of cases the opposite is true.

I am intrigued as to what the intention of the blog was and whether you think it may have backfired a bit.

Either way you've certainly got a few fired up on the Alamy forum which in itself is always good for a laugh.


zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2008, 16:18 »
0
hi Jeff,

I would like to relate a story:

I sat with an experienced old-school RF guy, who has made literally millions with CD sales. He pointed across the river, and showed me the landmark in his hometown, where he made his first 'bigtime' photo sale: $8000 for one shot, of a public building that is obviously available for anyone to shoot. He came to us, because, like many of the old school crew, his sales were being eroded by microstock. A trickle at first, then a problem:  multi-thousand dollar monthly royalty cheques reduced to hundreds.   

I was quite happy that he would want to sell with us, and gladly got his photos into the queue on his behalf.  A day later, he contacts me "What's goin' on, you've rejected 50% of my batch so far". I probably blushed on the phone, and assured him I would investigate and find the Reviewer team member responsible, and hang them by their <family friendly edit>.

Turns out, our Review team was absolutely correct: out of focus, chest hair visible on the poor slide scans, etc. But, these exact photos, had something like 800+ downloads on a certain big microstock site that he submitted to a year before. Hmm.. what to do?      The answer is: if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. We can only guess that those 800+ downloaders we're happy to have only paid $1 to find last nights body hair embedded in the images.. after all, it's only a small chunk of change.            We have found that the $40 - $50 range moves like hotcakes for a wide range of clients - and we simply cannot reduce our quality standards to some kind of 'common acceptance rate' as an average of the top agencies  - because, unlike some other agencies, we eat every single chargeback or customer refund complaint that is valid.   

Jeff, I am not implying your photos had such obvious defects, I have thus far not been alerted to a discrepancy between your expectations and our Review team actions, but the point is, pixels are cheap and opinions are always available on the internet: if you could post some of these rejects we are always willing to discuss why they didn't make the cut. Of course we can never be the definitive accepted guide to good stock until we are number one in the industry, but it's for this exact reason we try to be different and uphold a quality over quantity ethos.


I  am aware that this site has HIGH standards, but I think as a small site they are way too restrictive.  I uploaded 7 shots that were all good sellers elsewhere, and all 7 were rejected as not up to their quality.  I just checked on those 7 images at the Big 6 sites that have approved them, and each has sold 10 or more times.

I doubt if they will last if they turn away decent content on a daily basis.......and I have not recommended the site to anyone for that very reason.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 16:23 by zymmetrical »

« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2008, 17:23 »
0
Keith....

Classy of you to respond and to monitor the boards for people - like me - who are a bit taken aback by the very high standards of your site.

However, since you were nice enough to respond, I'm going to give it another try with a eye for quality above all else. I'll upload a handful of my very best shots (no visible defects or body hair, I promise) and see how these fare with your review team. 

Jeff

hali

« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2008, 17:48 »
0
Keith....

Classy of you to respond and to monitor the boards for people - like me - who are a bit taken aback by the very high standards of your site.

However, since you were nice enough to respond, I'm going to give it another try with a eye for quality above all else. I'll upload a handful of my very best shots (no visible defects or body hair, I promise) and see how these fare with your review team. 

Jeff

Jeff, i have to admit, i was one of those who wanted to , in Keith's own words, "hang ZYmmetrical
et co...by the ...."
in response to my email, Keith said in almost the same words and stood by his reviewers.
I submitted new images taking what Keith said to heart.
also that he was , in your own words, "nice enough to respond"...
and in my own words, i said exactly as you just said, " i 'm going to give it another try".

conclusion: i got some acceptances, and still some rejections. but this time, it didn't sound so unfair
, simply because Zymmetrical wants NOT to be like other microstock sites.

I like that attitude. I also admire someone who is not afraid to stand by his crew,
as motley as they seem to be , to us.  ;D

cheers Keith ! your participation and open communication are what we need here, big time!

p.s.
incidentally Keith, i am still having i/o error messages trying to upload new images last night. you fixed it once before, with the Ctrl F5 but this time that did not work still. i will email you so your IT can solve it.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 17:54 by hali »

« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2008, 16:20 »
0
Aka Tom and others that read my blog.

didn't read it. didn't know anything about it.  this is the only forum/blog i read. don't have the time to spend out there surfing the web. Thanks for your comment though. appreciated..  8)=tom


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3946 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 13:11
by Microbius
11 Replies
6451 Views
Last post January 29, 2009, 21:54
by Elenathewise
18 Replies
6653 Views
Last post February 08, 2011, 10:00
by Noctiluxx
14 Replies
4949 Views
Last post May 29, 2017, 19:07
by Pixart
50 Replies
5990 Views
Last post March 24, 2021, 03:54
by MotionDesign

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle