What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions

[cobalt]

Cobalt you seem to be overly interested in my business. Let me worry about where I place my content.

From a moral standpoint I think it is fair to advise new contributors when a company openly states that they intend to keep pricing at a level that will gain their company market share because their business choices have and will continue to affect the entire market.  I can understand that the company and those actively working to promote said company would rather keep those company comments to the wall street crowd hidden.

You have stated in another thread that you are working with fotolia, shutterstock and formerly istock to help groups of their contributors produce authentic content so they can make better offers to their local customers and markets currently provided by macro producers.  In that post, you pointed out that of course agencies want to distinguish themselves from each other and your point is valid. I can see why the sites would be interested in working with you to secure such content.

However you tend to only highlight positive points about each company. Many of those points have gone against my own experience with those companies and each of us has the right to report our own experiences. 

I can see why your comments would be beneficial for the micro companies you praise enthusiastically.  However honest viewpoints from long time contributors and valid comments from said company, might also be helpful for new contributors who would like to know where the value of their portfolios will stand in future years.

I have never been an employee of fotolia and SS, nor have I ever written any paid posts or made comments with the intention of "promoting" a specific agency.

What i write is entirely my own opinion, I am completly independent.

There is simply no benefit for me to prefer one agency, I don't want to ever see my income drop drastically because one place messes up.

You also seem to ignore all the negative things i write, like that for me SS is not a very interesting agency for photos, only for video.

That is a very, very negative thing to say about the microstock agency most people are reporting as their best. And yet, this is my honest opinion, formed by practical experience in the last two years.

However, this is the way it works for me. Right now. Today. Other artists, will have other experiences and maybe my SS income from photos will improve in time. Maybe it really needs 6000 images or more to really benefit from their system, I don�t know.


Fotolia doesn't offer any search function for customers for exclusive content. Their upload process, especially their categories are a horrible experience.

i never opted into the dollar photo club and was extremely angry my files were "hijacked " without asking me.

So i really don't understand what on earth you mean by "promoting" stock companies. I write about my experiences, just like everyone else here. I still have less than one thousand photos on the micros and this year my main focus was creating exclusive content,several hundred versus around a hundred for micro.

Maybe next year i will switch again and do it the other way round.

If SS is the most interesting place for you,because you believe they have the strongest influence on the market, that is certainly a point to make. But their importance is now threatened by the entry of adobe and inspite of their debts, Getty is still double their size.

Otherwise you said yourself, your business is doing well, which I assume means you are getting better income elsewhere than SS. If you don�t want to share which agencies work better for you, or believe this will better protect your income, by not mentioning them, it is fine and congratulations.

Eta: if istock would offer exclusive images, I would send them exclusive content as well

[skyfish]

For me is acceptable only image exclusivity, for photographer exclusivity - i have no trust to any agency.

[gbalex]

.

You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?

They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.

Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.

Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.

I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.

Feel free. Although you'd have to look up under my old user id (farbled). Isn't that part of what a forum is about? Challenging opinions (or lack of them)?

I find your comment amusing considering you have shared no opinions, in regard to the topic of this thread.

.

You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?

The thread topic and question was as follows, the op did not ask about other sites.

"Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions. Will anyone accept that? Explain why not or why would you?"

[gbalex]

cobalt you are off base if you think that my focus is solely shutterstock, based on their actions I have moved most of my focus to other sites and avenues.

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS. The downward pricing on video instigated by BS, left a bad taste in my mouth and I now focus on other sites who I feel do a better job of protecting our interests. No need to mention who they are because everyone is aware of them.

I comment on shutterstocks negative moves more often than other sites, because as a micro leader their negative moves have significant impact on the industry as a whole. 

[ShadySue]

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?

[photominer]

.

You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?

They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.

Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.

Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.

I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.

Feel free. Although you'd have to look up under my old user id (farbled). Isn't that part of what a forum is about? Challenging opinions (or lack of them)?

I find your comment amusing considering you have shared no opinions, in regard to the topic of this thread.

.

You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?

The thread topic and question was as follows, the op did not ask about other sites.

"Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions. Will anyone accept that? Explain why not or why would you?"

I'm glad you find my comments amusing. I'd hate for it to be one sided.

If SS offered image exclusivity I would consider it, but in light of my sales patterns, my niche subjects and a few other things, I would likely not bother. My best sellers generally are best sellers on most of the agencies I submit to, so exclusivity would quite possibly decrease my sales. I am hopeful that with Adobe throwing their hat in, it will increase competition and (hopefully) mean a better deal for all of us.

Regarding your other point, you opened the door for broader question when you said you were providing an opinion for new entrants to the MS world. I see no problem expanding on an OP if it seems relevant to the discussion. We've all done it at various times. That said, it's very early in the morning and I'm not completely awake yet, so I'll bow out until I get some more coffee in me.

[PixelBytes]

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What??!!!  They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock?  That's a terrible move on your friends parts.  They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this.  Could you explain more?

Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders.  I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.

Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV.  If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt.  Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment. 

I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights.  There is no need to choose.  Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.

[gbalex]

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What??!!!  They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock?  That's a terrible move on your friends parts.  They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this.  Could you explain more?

Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders.  I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.

Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV.  If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt.  Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment. 

I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights.  There is no need to choose.  Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.

Lisa and quite a few like her went by the wayside as a result of the mentality on this forum. Some of them used to tell me they thought the sites had employees sign up to heckle their opinions for obvious reasons.

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

[PixelBytes]

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

[gbalex]

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community

[PixelBytes]

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community

Anyone who is still having  love affair with any of the agencies is kidding themselves.  Your linked article is a good example.  Wasn't this same person deeply devoted to another agency a couple years ago?  Maybe some people have a strong need to belong to something.  I know people who are the same way devoted to sports teams.

These stock sites are all out for their profits,  not ours.  It is foolish to form emotional attachment to any of them.  And to heckle people who are skeptics is short sighted. May skeptics here have been proved right in time. 

[gbalex]

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community

Anyone who is still having  love affair with any of the agencies is kidding themselves.  Your linked article is a good example.  Wasn't this same person deeply devoted to another agency a couple years ago?  Maybe some people have a strong need to belong to something.  I know people who are the same way devoted to sports teams.

These stock sites are all out for their profits,  not ours.  It is foolish to form emotional attachment to any of them.  And to heckle people who are skeptics is short sighted. May skeptics here have been proved right in time.

Yes IS history repeating itself on other sites, the people who thought they would garner preferential treatment @ IS by training their competitors, eventually had to deal with the reality of the situation. Not surprised to see the scenario repeat itself on other sites.

If you do a search on this site you can see contributors being lambasted for simply stating the truth in regard to IS. Virulent supporters defended the site, while also demeaning those who challenged its actions; until the bitter end.

[PaulieWalnuts]

After being exclusive with Istock I wouldn't go exclusive with what the OP is proposing. I now want total control over my images to do what I want. An agency would need to offer me a boatload of guaranteed money over a long time for me to go exclusive again.

[Batman]

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community

You mean like Semmick when he was the self appointed rep. for Ireland. SS was smart enough to steer clear of that. They must read forums and see how some people are high risk. Yourself included for your never ending attack on anything SS.

[Milinz]

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What??!!!  They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock?  That's a terrible move on your friends parts.  They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this.  Could you explain more?

Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders.  I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.

Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV.  If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt.  Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment. 

I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights.  There is no need to choose.  Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.

Lisa and quite a few like her went by the wayside as a result of the mentality on this forum. Some of them used to tell me they thought the sites had employees sign up to heckle their opinions for obvious reasons.

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

Lisa left because of people like you.

People on SS who sold out their collection of video to BS for a payment or continuing payments were asked and accepted the terms. Before the video showed up  on BS. I don't like the cheap subs but I don't know how much the contract was for "your friends" who you claim to know, but they didn't tell you anything. Just as good as you making it up, as usual. If you had facts I'd read with interest. You have a guess, no information. Your guess is of course negative against SS.

Speaking of people hired by an agency. Somebody said you were an owner in a major agency and that's why you come to bash SS so much? Is that true? He swears it's a fact top ten agency major player. Are you a partner or owner in a big agency?

[Uncle Pete]

For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.

It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/

Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.

Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?

[gbalex]

Lisa left because of people like you.

People on SS who sold out their collection of video to BS for a payment or continuing payments were asked and accepted the terms. Before the video showed up  on BS. I don't like the cheap subs but I don't know how much the contract was for "your friends" who you claim to know, but they didn't tell you anything. Just as good as you making it up, as usual. If you had facts I'd read with interest. You have a guess, no information. Your guess is of course negative against SS.

Speaking of people hired by an agency. Somebody said you were an owner in a major agency and that's why you come to bash SS so much? Is that true? He swears it's a fact top ten agency major player. Are you a partner or owner in a big agency?

Your really off base here, Lisa and I talked often and I can assure you I am not the reason she left.

I also do not own or work for any agency, but I am disgusted by the moves shutterstock has made, how those moves have affected people I have watched work hard for years as well as other agencies.

If more people stood up to the agencies who take advantage of our complacency, I think the agencies would not be taking the liberties they do with our assets. Look how well it is working out for us.

I would not go into the particulars of anyone's business, I think that should be left to them. I am sure it was different for everyone depending on the size and content of their ports and the average sales numbers for that port. The deal stinks for the industry as a whole pure and simple.

[gbalex]

For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.

It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/

Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.

Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?

I don't think that was the deal for everyone, some of the ports on BS are still on SS. The fact that they carried this out on BS turned me off to uploading more vids on SS.

[Uncle Pete]

Not knowing the deal, I can't say how it was worked out.

The point is, these were not just moved without notice and everyone who has their collection on BS was notified in advance. Some might be moved off SS, some not, that's not important. Just a detail.

If these were sold at the basic sub rate on BS, people would make about 40c a DL at the usual SS 20% rate. (just a rough number, but it points out how standard commissions wouldn't work) Hardly enough for anyone to want to take the deal. There must have been some very enticing offer made, for the people who did allow this.

In fact, lets say the artists got 100%, that's still only $2.76 a DL? Hardly worth it for HD video.

Meanwhile, No I wouldn't go exclusive on SS if they ever offered it. Well maybe, if they offered four times the commissions that I currently get.  Might be that Jon already figured that out and they wouldn't want exclusive artists because it would cut into the company profits too much. Better play is spin the answer into something positive, and tell us why we wouldn't want to do it either.

For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.

It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/

Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.

Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?

In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?

I don't think that was the deal for everyone, some of the ports on BS are still on SS. The fact that they carried this out on BS turned me off to uploading more vids on SS.

[gbalex]

Not knowing the deal, I can't say how it was worked out.

The point is, these were not just moved without notice and everyone who has their collection on BS was notified in advance. Some might be moved off SS, some not, that's not important. Just a detail.

If these were sold at the basic sub rate on BS, people would make about 40c a DL at the usual SS 20% rate. (just a rough number, but it points out how standard commissions wouldn't work) Hardly enough for anyone to want to take the deal. There must have been some very enticing offer made, for the people who did allow this.

In fact, lets say the artists got 100%, that's still only $2.76 a DL? Hardly worth it for HD video.

Meanwhile, No I wouldn't go exclusive on SS if they ever offered it. Well maybe, if they offered four times the commissions that I currently get.  Might be that Jon already figured that out and they wouldn't want exclusive artists because it would cut into the company profits too much. Better play is spin the answer into something positive, and tell us why we wouldn't want to do it either.

Yes I agree, I think it must have been different for everyone and they did know upfront and agreed to it.

I would not be surprised as part of the agreement they were required to sign an NDA, thus the lack of details. 

[PixelBytes]

I would not be surprised as part of the agreement they were required to sign an NDA, thus the lack of details.

NDA makes sense.

[skyfish]

.What if?. Watching the trends, not a lot of space for positive expectations is left already.

[gbalex]

You mean like Semmick when he was the self appointed rep. for Ireland. SS was smart enough to steer clear of that. They must read forums and see how some people are high risk. Yourself included for your never ending attack on anything SS.

I don't feel the need to trash talk Ron, I tell him what I believe when we disagree. We have butted heads here on the MSG forums many times, but over the last year I think he has done a good job of showing respect to me and other people here on the boards. We frequently agree and disagree and I think that is healthy.

As for your comment about me, I will take your comment as a compliment. If I were going to promote any company as a "Community Leader". I would need to be able to look each person I attracted to join thru the position in the eye and feel that the investment in time, talent, and funds they would personally choose to make, as a result of my involvement; would be beneficial to them in the long term.

Rather than take things at face value when shutterstock went public, I spent time to find out where we stand as contributors. I have taken the time to find out who joined shutterstock as key business decision makers as a result of the IPO. And I take time to read the financial reports and PR shutterstock is producing to attract investors. I think this is important for my own port, because shutterstock's key business insiders determine the future value of the assets we produce. And because they hold a large share of the market their business decisions, also affect the value of our assets on other micro & macro sites.

As a result of my research, I would not choose to be a Community Leader at a company that chooses to devalue our assets to gain market share. I would choose the welfare of my friends & colleges over any monetary or others benefits I might gain any day.

[Semmick Photo]

Aaaaah Batman. Still can't let go of me. 

[tickstock]

Not gonna happen, at least we still own our copyright:  "You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."  Does this leave open the possibility that those things could change or that there was a discussion about them?