Can iStock Turn Midstock Sales Around?

[Shelma1]

image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.

Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Subscription Reality

2007
$0.25  or 119% of each download

2014
$0.38  or 135% of each download

So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.

Subs went from $199 to $299 per year (a 50% increase).

Earnings per DL for top contributors went from .25 to .38 (a 50% increase).

[cthoman]

Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!

Yeah! FYIGM! 

I guess there is still the question of whether you think there is or could be a better game in town. I know what my answer is.

[gbalex]

image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.

Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Subscription Reality

2007
$0.25  or 119% of each download

2014
$0.38  or 135% of each download

So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.

No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.

We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.

Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.

In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download

In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.

[gbalex]

Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!

This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.

[ethan]

Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!

This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.

The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.

Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.

[Shelma1]

image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.

Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Subscription Reality

2007
$0.25  or 119% of each download

2014
$0.38  or 135% of each download

So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.

No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.

We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.

Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.

In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download

In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.

Which earning category are you in?

[cthoman]

Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!

This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.

The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.

Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.

I was sort of halfway kidding. We definitely tend to cannibalize each other, but at the same time certain business models work better for some contributors. That said, there's something to be said for continuing to push the industry to improve itself and not just being content with whatever bone it throws your way.

[PixelBytes]

FYIGM was a new one for me.  Here is the definition if I am not the only one...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM

[robhainer]

Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!

This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.

The penultimate quote to your previous one (cthoman) sums up RH perfectly. FYIGM.

Part-time snapper happy to screw all others in order to make a few pennies more for himself.

I'd call $24,000 a year and growing from microstock more than "pennies." How much do you make from stock photography, Ethan?

I've been through this once with you, and I'm only going to do it once more. I'm a full-time photographer. I just don't sink all my eggs into the stock photography basket. I prefer diversity in my income sources.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should care what photographers in mid stock are making. If their photos are superior one of a kind images, then they have nothing to worry about from me. If they can't produce better images than my typical stuff, then they shouldn't be in mid-stock to begin with.

[ethan]

FYIGM was a new one for me.  Here is the definition if I am not the only one...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FYIGM

Yep, that's the one

[robhainer]

And let's not forget the total hypocrisy of complaining about how Shutterstock works when you guys are just as happy to cash in the earnings you're getting. Put your money where your mouth is.

[gbalex]

image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.

Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Subscription Reality

2007
$0.25  or 119% of each download

2014
$0.38  or 135% of each download

So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.

No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.

We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.

Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.

In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download

In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.

Which earning category are you in?

Does it matter?

Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?

The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year and our cost to produce image assets is rising, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.

That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.

I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.

[robhainer]

And who judges what "fair" is? I think what Shutterstock pays me is fair because I'd be earning zero off of stock without it. It's certainly more than enough to justify the time and effort I spend on the images I have there.

[cthoman]

And let's not forget the total hypocrisy of complaining about how Shutterstock works when you guys are just as happy to cash in the earnings you're getting. Put your money where your mouth is.

It's not so much being unhappy. For me, it's more a realization that I'm probably making 50% of what I could or should be making. It took some experimenting to find the sweet spot in pricing and volume. Now that I have a general idea of what that is, I see how far off some agencies are from that.

Maybe, it is unrealistic to expect or hope that these agencies will care and do better. At the same time, I realize that it isn't very likely that the market and demand for my images will continue to grow. So, getting the agencies to change seems like the more achievable of two unachievable goals to increase my income. 

[ShadySue]

we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.

And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
Is it 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?

[Shelma1]

Does it matter?

Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?

The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.

That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.

I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.

I don't think there's a person here who wouldn't love a better payout and wishes their work sold for higher prices.

But you seem focused on one site in particular--the one that brings in the most earnings for most of us and the one that's actually looking for ways to sell images for higher prices rather than lower. Not that I wouldn't mind if Oringer paid us a little better and was happy being a simple multimillionaire rather than a billionaire.

There are ways for micro sites to compete other than just slashing prices. That's a desperate move by companies lacking ideas. They're being reactive rather than proactive, and they're reacting a decade too late.

[robhainer]

we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.

And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?

That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.

Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.

[cthoman]

we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.

And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?

That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.

Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.

I thought that was the whole argument going on here that the market is not doing this and just selling images for whatever these companies decide is fair.

[ShadySue]

That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.

If that's the model you want, you have that option at Pixels.com and IIRC at Pond5, and probably others I don't know about.

[gbalex]

Does it matter?

Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?

The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.

That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.

I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.

I don't think there's a person here who wouldn't love a better payout and wishes their work sold for higher prices.

But you seem focused on one site in particular--the one that brings in the most earnings for most of us and the one that's actually looking for ways to sell images for higher prices rather than lower. Not that I wouldn't mind if Oringer paid us a little better and was happy being a simple multimillionaire rather than a billionaire.

There are ways for micro sites to compete other than just slashing prices. That's a desperate move by companies lacking ideas. They're being reactive rather than proactive, and they're reacting a decade too late.

From my perspective if you are going to work on improving the inequity of the situation, why would you choose to work at improving earnings at microsites which impact our earnings in a limited fashion. Meaning sites that have a small percentage of market share.

The fact that Jon has become a very wealthy on the strength and value of our hard work an assets is fine, however the spread between his earning and ours has become inordinate or disproportionally excessive!

Wealth and Income Distribution - Reality VS Perception
http://tinyurl.com/nvorqxf!

[gbalex]

we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.

And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?

That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.

Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.

The buyer market lost its ability to decide, once the sites made search changes developed to serve content which would bring them the highest income per download; instead of letting buyers choose which content would be popular.

[luissantos84]

have you ever thought about other businesses?

are farmers getting as much as the supermarkets? are musicians getting as much as labels? are writers getting as much as publishers? are doctors getting as much as the company owner they work for?

unfortunately the world isn't ready to share the wealth created using other "work", what would you pay if you were Jon?

you can ask whatever you wish and I would love a few raises too but why would Jon be different from the rest of the world? not even going to talk about the direct competitors % royalties

solution: build your own SS and share the wealth you created or just be a normal business man and pay as much as your competitors like all agencies do

[robhainer]

we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.

And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?

That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.

Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.

The buyer market lost its ability to decide, once the sites made search changes developed to serve content which would bring them the highest income per download; instead of letting buyers choose which content would be popular.

That's a load of baloney. All new files are treated the same regardless of who submits them unlike other sites that favor exclusives in their search even if nonexclusive images are better.

[gbalex]

have you ever thought about other businesses?

are farmers getting as much as the supermarkets? are musicians getting as much as labels? are writers getting as much as publishers? are doctors getting as much as the company owner they work for?

unfortunately the world isn't ready to share the wealth created using other "work", what would you pay if you were Jon?

you can ask whatever you wish and I would love a few raises too but why would Jon be different from the rest of the world? not even going to talk about the direct competitors % royalties.

The reality of the situation is that in the US where many of these micro have set up shop, they are back to early 1900's income inequality levels and at the time the era watched the rise of much needed trade unions as a result of huge income gaps.

Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?

Is Wealth Inequality Rising in the U.S.?
http://tinyurl.com/kfxeyfh


CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners
http://tinyurl.com/p2lduk3

The Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) has today released its report highlighting the intense state of insecurity American workers are experiencing as they look forward�with ever increasing trepidation�to a retirement without sufficient money to see them through.

According to the data, American workers have very good reason to be afraid.


http://tinyurl.com/dx48ya3

Putting CEO Pay in Perspective
How much more do CEOs at America's highest-grossing companies earn compared to their workers? The size of the circles in this infographic illustrates the difference in pay between a CEO and his or her employees.
 
How Does CEO Pay Compare to Median Worker Salary? Roll over the info graphic in the page below to reveal details

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/ceo-worker-pay_n_5332039.html

[BaldricksTrousers]

All totally irrelevant.