Jump to content

Is this the reason for photo grades?


Recommended Posts

These are truly garbage ratings. Sold this today for the 10th time in 9 years:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/medical-stethoscope-coiled-shape-red-heart-115945114

and on my desktop in Firefox I get no further info, looking on my Android mobile I get this:

1607115825_NickPic1322021-05-0312_30_32.thumb.jpg.e9dc33c6346432e8acf68a3ed6d1173d.jpg

Approximately one sale per year....it is neither highly popular nor commonly used. This is misleading disinformation.

Mind you....on another they got it right and have even given it 'superstar' status!

1606926043_NickPic1342021-05-0313_39_07A.jpg.d6ce1e18814e8fe67468b8f99cfe91a4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t see the points, ratings or anything ..!

But as a serious customer producing e.g. a printed matter, I would stay far away from images with labels as ‘customers love this’, ‘sold in thousands’ and so on because no company or designers want a brochure with the same images as many others.

So in that respect it’s a service for customers.

But maybe bloggers and others on the internet don’t care if the blogger next door is using the same images as you ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

 But as a serious customer producing e.g. a printed matter I would stay away from images with labels as ‘customers love this’, ‘sold in thousands and so on because no company or designers want a brochure with the same images as many others.

I think if that's a real concern for a company, then microstock probably is not the place where they look for photos in the first place.


I think as a customer I'd rather stay away from images that have no or low polarity and, according to SS, haven't sold, because I would automatically think "What's wrong with this photo? I thought it looked good, but if no one else liked it enough to purchase it, there must be something wrong and I better stay away from it".

Just think about it, no matter what product, who would feel motivated to buy something where the shop is basically telling you "No one wants this"? Imagine you want to buy a vacuum cleaner and the shop tells you about one vacuum cleaner "This is very popular and lots of people bought it" and then there is another one and the shop tells you "This is not popular, no one ever bought it" and they both have the same price. Which one do you pick?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Firn said:

Which one do you pick?

I would buy the one that has no "resealed" (brought back) ones, whatever it is called in different countries.

Well, that is not the case with stock, but very often, never used images are just new (newer than 1 year) which is kinda normal.

On the other hand, I've seen images with 5 or less dl-s marked with "high, often used.

 

Maybe someone listens, so I dare wish they work out some new features from the ones they promised a long time ago. One would be sorting top performers after the number of dl-s along with what we have now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Whiteaster said:

I would buy the one that has no "resealed" (brought back) ones, whatever it is called in different countries.

Well, that is not the case with stock, but very often, never used images are just new (newer than 1 year) which is kinda normal.

I would think that something is fishy about a product, vacuum cleaner or whatever it may be, if it has been on the market for months and no one bought it. But maybe that's just me?

The problem here is also that SS does not tell customers whether an image is less than one year old or not. It would be better if, instead of showing "not used yet" or "not popular" with newer images even if they have sold hundreds of times, they would just honestly say "image not old enough to provide data".

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Firn said:

I would think that something is fishy about a product, vacuum cleaner or whatever it may be, if it has been on the market for months and no one bought it. But maybe that's just me?

The problem here is also that SS does not tell customers whether an image is less than one year old or not. It would be better if, instead of showing "not used yet" or "not popular" with newer images even if they have sold hundreds of times, they would just honestly say "image not old enough to provide data".

Good idea, unfortunately nobody listens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Firn said:

I would think that something is fishy about a product, vacuum cleaner or whatever it may be, if it has been on the market for months and no one bought it

In my world there's a huge difference between consumer goods and 'art'.

Nobody wants the same image on the front page as your competitor - or ...? But I would like my neighbor's car ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

In my world there's a huge difference between consumer goods and 'art'.

Nobody wants the same image on the front page as your competitor - or ...? But I would like my neighbor's car ...

As said above, if you are a company who doesn't want to use the same photos as your competition, you are probably not buying your photos on microstock. At least you should not....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...