Why are you submitting to Shutterstock?

Quote from: Ron on November 09, 2013, 12:35

There is no explanation from Yuri, just a comment from you and he said nicely said. It confirms what I said though. He let his cost spiral out of control, blamed SS for not raising their pricing and then went with IS. Nothing wrong about that, but dont blame SS for his problems. They didnt force him to leave. He should have kept the cost down while producing images for his beloved mircostock. Why are you submitting to SS if their pricing is so evil? They have always been a subscription site. Its like buying shoes at Wallmart and then blame them for selling you cheap shoes.

You are warping my perspective and putting words in my mouth to promote your own agenda.

I have never said that Andres or Yuri let their cost's spiral out of control, that is your own perspective. I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

To top it off senior SS management put BS bridge in place, implemented sub plans and undercut SS pricing to gain market share via BS, so that they can pay contributors less. If a few beers and some happy banter will blind you to reality, happy shooting, work your ass off and one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.

If you want a short cut to reality, ask yourself why BS financials are no longer transparent in the SEC filings.

You edited your comment after I replied.

The bridge was put in place many years ago, and at the moment is no longer available. You are twisting chronological order for your convenience

As for the beers, sure, they bought me for 2 pints. Thats how cheap I am. Offer me 3 and I'll say something in your favour. 

Quote from: gbalex on November 09, 2013, 13:04

I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.

Doesn't SS have pretty much the same contributor base as everyone else?  I'd suggest success is more down to a degree of vision and then doing things properly.

Quote from: Ron on November 09, 2013, 14:03

The bridge was put in place many years ago, and at the moment is no longer available. You are twisting chronological order for your convenience

The bridge was announced about two and a bit years ago, no ? Is that many ?

The cut price BS subs came much later ?

Chronology seems right.

The bridge was introduced 3 years ago. The bridge was never open to all contributors, and at the moment, no one can get the bridge anymore, the program was terminated well before the price change. Gbalex made it sound like SS offered the bridge and then lowered the pricing while they were still porting over images to BS. If you dont like the bridge, ask SS to remove you from it. No one is held hostage.

Quote from: gbalex on November 09, 2013, 13:04

I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.

Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23

2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?

2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2011 October  - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

USA Inflation:
$0.20 in 2004 should now be $0.25. Cumulative rate of inflation of 24%
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Shutterstock matches that exactly in the first tier to $500 in earnings. All the other royalties are extra earnings.
If I take the first $0.20 and now the $0.38, thats an increase of 90%.
Over the years different royalties have been introduced that have increased overall earnings

How 'bout doing one for IS an FT for comparison purposes?

I was thinking about that, but its a bit of work, so I will let someone else have fun with that 

there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging
no exclusive  http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr

I don't know the answer, I guess I can ask Andres next week at the expo. but take note on the LTD of the new account.  One account looks to be a personal account and the other account is a separate entity, the LTD entity. 

It smacks of desperation when they herald Yuri's images as "Only from Istock" when actually many of them are available from multiple other outlets, at much cheaper prices, including Yuri's own platform. I'm not well-versed in Canadian law but I'd be surprised if that's even legal.

"(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims, statements, illustrations or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to any identified or identifiable product(s) or service(s)."
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx

Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner',

On the icons page, it defines the crown  in terms of the imageexclusivity, not the contributor:
"Only available on iStock
These icons highlight files created by iStock exclusive artists. This means they can only be found on iStock and select Getty Images partner sites."
http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php

Formerly,  the definition was all about the photographer.
e.g. from Wayback Machine:
"Images from this photographer are only available on iStockphoto! " 1 July 2005
http://web.archive.org/web/20050701011636/http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php
(was that true in 2005? By the time I joined, exclusives could sell RM elsewhere.)
Hmm, hard to tell. Text is the same in July 2006, but by the end of that year, something changed so that paticular text is no longer found on that page via the Wayback machine.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 09, 2013, 18:16

Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner'

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022
http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards
http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards
http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064

Lightening-like response from our Portuguese 'super-sleuth' and internet expert. There's not much that escapes him!

Definition of a portugese man-of-war 

needless to say I have loads of fun doing this

And we have loads of fun reading them.

Quote from: loop on November 09, 2013, 14:19

Quote from: gbalex on November 09, 2013, 13:04

I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.

sure I agree at some point with that BUT can you guys tell me which agencies have:
1 - paid your bills
2 - showed continuous growth
3 - no royalties cut

the hard truth is that SS is the only agency we can rely on and have continuous motivation to keep on working unless you have fallen on iStock lap and exclusivity is fitting you perfectly or got some special deal at iStock or other agency

Perception is not reality.

SS planed well ahead to go public. They started putting key people on the board long before they went public and they implemented the bridge program soon after putting those people in place.

SS has cut royalties... they just used the bridge program and BigStock to do it.  They are hoping that the majority of small contributors will not notice them funneling buyers over to BS.  It only stands to reason that this income drain will have a greater impact on large HCV producers.

Why do you supposed the BS financial are not broken out in the SEC filings.  The first ones did have BS financials as required by law, now they have them hidden and they are able to do so because BS is now a division of SS and not a separate business entity.