Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS #OptInWhenTheyPayUp

[MarcvsTvllivs]

I've opted out as well.

[cobalt]

You are assuming that it is only a reduction with zero chance of more or equal money and that volume will not go up.

If they had just said, from now on we get 12 dollars instead of 28, I would agree with you and maybe consider opting out if enhanced licenses are a significant part of most contributors income, maybe my portfolio is just unlucky. Half of my income? Of course I�ll protest!!

But here, I really don�t see it. Both in volume and money it is negligable.

Actually the photo sales overall have been dissapointing for me, unlike video. But that is a different story.

The other thing is - yes we have had really horrible experiences with other agencies. Does this mean that SS can never change anything in their business model?

They have managed to be scandal free for most of the time and do respond to complaints without banning people, see the watermark issue.

I genuinly believe that a flexible model can earn more money, if it is done well.

So at this point I personally really don�t see enough data for an organized shitstorm.

I might be wrong of course, but I can�t join a fight if I am not convinced.

Sorry

[Jo Ann Snover]

I tweeted about today's unfortunate situation of having to say "no" to a customer, and used a hashtag #OptInWhenTheyPayUp as well as #Shutterstock in the tweet

For those who don't do twitter "I said "no" to #Shutterstock customer asking for Enhanced License-opted out after #RoyaltyCut. #OptInWhenTheyPayUp-I'd love to help customer"

[obj owl]

You are assuming that it is only a reduction with zero chance of more or equal money and that volume will not go up.

If they had just said, from now on we get 12 dollars instead of 28, I would agree with you and maybe consider opting out if enhanced licenses are a significant part of most contributors income, maybe my portfolio is just unlucky. Half of my income? Of course I�ll protest!!

But here, I really don�t see it. Both in volume and money it is negligable.

Actually the photo sales overall have been dissapointing for me, unlike video. But that is a different story.

The other thing is - yes we have had really horrible experiences with other agencies. Does this mean that SS can never change anything in their business model?

They have managed to be scandal free for most of the time and do respond to complaints without banning people, see the watermark issue.

I genuinly believe that a flexible model can earn more money, if it is done well.

So at this point I personally really don�t see enough data for an organized shitstorm.

I might be wrong of course, but I can�t join a fight if I am not convinced.

Sorry

What if they do the same with footage?  If this goes well for them it's the obvious next step, footage is now the only one out of line with the other media. 

[Jo Ann Snover]

You are assuming that it is only a reduction with zero chance of more or equal money and that volume will not go up.... Does this mean that SS can never change anything in their business model?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but do want to respond for the sake of those reading not posting.

Enhanced licenses are inherently different from standard licenses - if you don't do the specific activities permitted by an EL but forbidden by the standard license, you don't buy one. It isn't an issue of price in most cases, but not having the need.

And of course SS can change its business model - and it has done that many times over the years. When they introduced the SOD licensing, I fussed (along with some others) about the lack of transparency in the license terms, but didn't opt out because we were offered a decent percentage of the license (30% for me) and I was willing to accept that until they were caught doing something unfair to contributors, we should give them a chance to pursue this type of business.

It didn't hurt that these licenses were almost all higher priced than existing ones.

I still think they could be more transparent but so far so good and that business has done well for many.

The only possible way SS could hope to increase EL downloads (and I don't think it'd work for the reasons above) is by cutting the price buyers pay which cuts our royalties even further. They haven't said they will reduce prices, so for the moment all they're doing is taking more of the ELs than before - $7.61 from me earlier this week and if I'd have said "yes" to today's request they'd have kept an additional $6.

The other really obnoxious aspect to this initiative was the language used to introduce it - illogical (to simplify the earnings schedule...) (We are your partners and our job is to work tirelessly to serve you and grow our marketplace together.) They way you respect partners is to be straight with them, not drop a bomb in the forums (I never did receive the e-mail) and then ignore all the feedback thereafter.

[Cesar]

last 10.000 download i did not have EL sold, two years back i have one EL on 1000 DL.

what it really pisses me off, if you change contract you have to contact client and communicate, in this internet area, all commmunication is gone, take or it live it,

that is not standard business model.

[cobalt]

I agree with the silly way it was communicated, sounds like someone who has no experience with stock contributors was tasked to spin an "exciting" announcement for us on Friday afternoon...

If I wanted to sell more enhanced licenses I would indeed suggest to the customer that this new package "happy stock23" was better than "happy stock22" because it offered 100 enhanced licenses in the package or even a package where all downloads always included enhanced licenses...There are many companies who want to make sure the files they download always have all rights ready, simply because any wrong use would be so costly to correct. This would be a very simple package, more expensive yes, but definitely simpler.

Obviously I am not working in SS sales, but is it unreasonable to think that they did some extensiv testing before making the change?

You are perfectly right to suggest that maybe the only modeling they did was on existing sales data without more marketing or no new happy package, with the sole intention of more money for their shareholders and investors at the expense of the artist.

If this was getty...or the old fotolia...I probably wouldn�t even consider if they really had a plan to increase sales...but since SS has a positive track record, I am ready to believe they really did some tests and do plan to increase sales.

Maybe my trust is misplaced, I just have three years experience with them.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Good luck.

(Eta: with video my current worry is that neither pond5 nor SS are inspecting files in a normal time frame. If my two main agencies need months to bring the product to market...that is a very, very serious problem...)

[sharpshot]

I used to sell EL's every month but they have dried up for me.  Don't see the point in opting out, why don't we all just supply the few sites that give us a much better deal, like alamy, Pond5, GLStockImages, FeaturePics and a few others?

Even if shutterstock wanted to back down, I don't think they can now that their mission is to make as much profit as possible to keep their shareholders happy.  I was more alarmed when they bought BigStock and lowered commissions, that was a clear indicator that we were going to get squeezed.  Why wasn't there more of a protest when they raised prices but didn't give us a raise?  That costs us a lot more than lowering our cut on EL's.

Having lost a lot of money by deactivating most of my portfolio with istock, only to see some of the people that complain the most about them here were uploading all they could, I am wary of reducing my earnings potential again.  I think its much better to work harder with the good sites, we could give any site that pays 50% a boost if we all got behind them.

[Microstockphoto]

green machine, exactly

[Pauws99]

Think decs figures will make interesting reading....they still seem to be increasing revenue by 20% per annum. It may be they are struggling to maintain this. The stock market is a roller coaster at the moment and they were always overpriced. So may be cause for concern but not doomed just yet (plus they are sitting on a HUGE pile of $$$$$$)

[sharpshot]

....If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.

I think we all know who will be wanting to do that.  Perhaps the only hope for us not seeing this go the same way as istock is if SS can go private again with Jon Oringer back in control but that isn't likely.

[Lana]

I just opted out too. Sorry I had to wait for Friday to be over just in case

I don't get ELs more than once a month, my hands are  kinda itchy to opt back in to be honest, but I'm also curious to see where this move would lead us. I wonder if we have a voice if we "scream" together.

Besides, this virtual protest is the closest thing we can do to gathering a crowd in front of SS office with banners and stuff

[Mantis]

just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.

It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot.  And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.

My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.

If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.

Very good, well thought summary.  There is usually cause & effect and this is certainly a strong possibility.

[obj owl]

just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.

It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot.  And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.

My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.

If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.

There a very few investors these days most of them are speculators.  The money invested in the hope of gaining a bigger market share of the EL market is our money paid for with a pay cut, an investment with no return for us unless you are on the top tier and in an advantageous currency.  The risk has been transferred from the speculators to the contributors, the distribution of profits from the contributors to the speculators to make up for their ridiculous gambling approach to the stock market.

[gbalex]

....If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.

I think we all know who will be wanting to do that.  Perhaps the only hope for us not seeing this go the same way as istock is if SS can go private again with Jon Oringer back in control but that isn't likely.

I have absolutely no faith in Jon, after all he is the one person responsible for making the decisions to take venture capitol, offer the SSTK IPO and price the SS product below the competition long term to gain market share. His actions speak louder than any words and he went into this with his eyes wide open as he watched what unfolded at IS.

None of the decisions above have been taken with the intent of protecting our assets or financial interests. Yet with each negative hit to our assets, the apple polishers come out of the woodwork to defend shutterstocks latest downward move as potentially beneficial to the majority.

[etudiante_rapide]

just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.

It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot.  And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.

and you can also see it from yet another more realistic perspective
that
the current stock price $28.9
is the actual worth of the stock.

it is much like all stocks and real estate in a metropolis etc,
the perception of worth is always blown out of proportion when the stock is first issued.

vultures , and speculators, and insiders,...
buy up the stocks to artifically give the ordinary investors the impression that the ss stock is worth
70-90 bucks... even 110 bucks if they were allow enough time to pull the wool over their eyes..

but fortunately, they were unable to keep the intrinsic value from showing up itself
to be...
$28.9

if there is any pressure in anything anywhere,
it is the pressure between the shareholders ears
to think they could sustain the period to bullsh*t their way into making a quick profit...

but they can't... because you cannot fool the public all the time..
the same ppl they were trying to fool to make a quick profit
sold out quicker than they did

and now they are asking ss oringer & etc to slice the contributor so they can make a profit
or break even

it's called karma...
the longer ss slice the throats of their contributors
which is their suppliers and more like their farmers to the crop that brings money for those in the "market"place...
instead of cutting the gym , expensive office, perks, etc...

get it, investors in panic karma!!!

[etudiante_rapide]

afterthought...

how ironic that the numbers match....   
28 dollar...
28 cents...

sounds familiar???

[Copidosoma]

just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.

It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot.  And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.

and you can also see it from yet another more realistic perspective
that
the current stock price $28.9
is the actual worth of the stock.

it is much like all stocks and real estate in a metropolis etc,
the perception of worth is always blown out of proportion when the stock is first issued.

And you can see it from an even more realistic perspective.
The actual "worth" of the stock accurately represents the actual "worth" of the company and therefore the images within.

Maybe now that virtually everyone has a camera on their phone and access to professional quality gear and training is so easily available, the good 'ol days of making a 6 figure salary from your images in a crowd sourced, oversupplied microstock framework are over. Add an economic environment where people maybe aren't splashing the csh around on images that they "might" need and this certainly is just a conspiracy to fleece contributors. Isn't it?

Maybe it is time that we all just fill our portfolios with knockoff pot images and be done with it.

[w7lwi]

just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.

Just a clarification, SS stock was never intended to pay a dividend to investors.  The sole reason for investing was anticipated stock value gain.  As the stock price rose, you could cash out for a profit or hang in there for anticipated further appreciation.  I bought in to SS stock shortly after it first became available to the public.  As it's price rose it's value to me, based on what I perceived as an unrealistic P/E ratio, became untenable. Thus I sold my interest just short of $50 per share and made a tidy short-term profit.  I then watched as the share price continued to rise to well over $100 per share and knew this was totally unsustainable.  Sure enough, it finally began to fall to a more reasonable $28+ per share.  Do I wish I had held out for the higher price before selling?  Sure.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  But my risk tolerance would not allow me take this action and in the end it proved correct.

In this light, SS' actions are focused not only on just increasing their bottom line, but inducing potential investors to bid up the price of the stock such that some of the larger investors, who bought in at higher prices, can recoup at least some of their losses and/or make a profit by selling out.  In the long term, this does not bode well for further investment and SS may have to resort to more draconian measures to achieve their internal goals ... at our expense.

[etudiante_rapide]

Just a clarification, SS stock was never intended to pay a dividend to investors.  The sole reason for investing was anticipated stock value gain.  As the stock price rose, you could cash out for a profit or hang in there for anticipated further appreciation.  I bought in to SS stock shortly after it first became available to the public.  As it's price rose it's value to me, based on what I perceived as an unrealistic P/E ratio, became untenable. Thus I sold my interest just short of $50 per share and made a tidy short-term profit.  I then watched as the share price continued to rise to well over $100 per share and knew this was totally unsustainable.  Sure enough, it finally began to fall to a more reasonable $28+ per share.  Do I wish I had held out for the higher price before selling?  Sure.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  But my risk tolerance would not allow me take this action and in the end it proved correct.

In this light, SS' actions are focused not only on just increasing their bottom line, but inducing potential investors to bid up the price of the stock such that some of the larger investors, who bought in at higher prices, can recoup at least some of their losses and/or make a profit by selling out.  In the long term, this does not bode well for further investment and SS may have to resort to more draconian measures to achieve their internal goals ... at our expense.

well said, and well done ,
congrats on your insight to profit quickly and get out.

you , as an avid investor, would know by now, the first taste of fine wine is always the sweetest,
or as the english say, the first puff of opium is always free.

in one word, to remind you if you were around to invest at that time, where we too made a great profit .. 500% instantly, .. and then got greedy thinking we'll hold on to make maybe 600%
only to find we ended up with 25, or even 28 cents per unit.

the stock??? Bri-X

[etudiante_rapide]

for those wondering why i chose Bri-X???

mining industry can only sustain profit if there is really gold, diamond,etc..
we, the contributor is like the gold, diamond, oil, (drilling)etc..

if you fill your perception to investors with fake gold (like marijuana, apple, tomato, isolated..)
how long before the reality shows that the emperor really does not wear any clothes???

if instead ss realise the value of pleasing their "ore" supply (ie. us the contributors)
and realise that long term stability and reassurance to good supply of
commercial images and excellent editorial images, etc... which are the lifeline and bread and butter
of both ss and the clients...

how long before there is nothing but a ghost town with polluted land unusable and a threat to human living there...
the analogy to mining industry, ... or forestry,etc... raping the earth and walking away for
short term gain as opposed to long term sustainable growth and capital appreciation.

[YadaYadaYada]

....If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.

I think we all know who will be wanting to do that.  Perhaps the only hope for us not seeing this go the same way as istock is if SS can go private again with Jon Oringer back in control but that isn't likely.

I have absolutely no faith in Jon, after all he is the one person responsible for making the decisions to take venture capitol, offer the SSTK IPO and price the SS product below the competition long term to gain market share. His actions speak louder than any words and he went into this with his eyes wide open as he watched what unfolded at IS.

None of the decisions above have been taken with the intent of protecting our assets or financial interests. Yet with each negative hit to our assets, the apple polishers come out of the woodwork to defend shutterstocks latest downward move as potentially beneficial to the majority.

Right, none of the decisions are about us or our assets or financial. Cutting EL payments to us will only benefit the company profits. I'm not opting out because it only hurts me and I get very few ELs anymore. Do people really think a protest will change anything?

[noodle]

Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-

As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.