Author Topic: Truth about microstock revealed – Shutterstock’s IPO (Read 4167 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00

Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

will do it next time

gostwyck · « **Reply #26 on:** July 03, 2012, 15:35 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2012, 15:26

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00
Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

will do it next time

No, no, no. Please keep posting the links __ it might help Mr Spout climb the Google rankings too. I'm grateful to him for promulgating that microstock as a whole, and SS in particular, is not worth the time, effort or expense of any half-decent photographer. Good.

cthoman · « **Reply #27 on:** July 03, 2012, 16:26 »

Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 15:20

In all fairness I ask you to name one agency that does everything right. Obviously we are bitching about changes in the microstock industry as 99% are to the disadvantage of the contributor but please keep in mind that no macro agency has improved contributor royalties either.

I'm pretty happy with Clipartof and my own site, MyStockVectors. If I had a few more sites like them, I would probably leave all the major micros.

Mantis · « **Reply #28 on:** July 03, 2012, 18:28 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 03, 2012, 15:35

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2012, 15:26
Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00
Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

will do it next time

No, no, no. Please keep posting the links __ it might help Mr Spout climb the Google rankings too. I'm grateful to him for promulgating that microstock as a whole, and SS in particular, is not worth the time, effort or expense of any half-decent photographer. Good.

^^^Exactamundo^^^

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** July 03, 2012, 18:34 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00

Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

Copyright issues?

cclapper · « **Reply #30 on:** July 03, 2012, 18:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 03, 2012, 18:34

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00
Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

Let them file a DMCA just like we all have to do. Wouldn't that fall under the same bull$hit fair use clause as the bloggers hide behind?

Quote

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

We certainly are criticizing and commenting.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** July 04, 2012, 01:05 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 03, 2012, 08:58

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2012, 07:43
...don´t give up after a paragraph or two..
I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month. Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

I averaged 29 cents a download on SS last month. (and I'm happy)

Not everyone has 2000 - 4000 images and not everyone is part of the top 5% of microstock, like many of the people here are.

While the blog may be looking at the dark side, and ignoring the success of some, remember that 50% of the people who get accepted (ignore the thousands who never pass that test) Never Reach Payout! It's a tough business, there's no free lunch.

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #32 on:** July 04, 2012, 05:20 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on July 04, 2012, 01:05

I averaged 29 cents a download on SS last month. (and I'm happy)

Not everyone has 2000 - 4000 images and not everyone is part of the top 5% of microstock, like many of the people here are.

While the blog may be looking at the dark side, and ignoring the success of some, remember that 50% of the people who get accepted (ignore the thousands who never pass that test) Never Reach Payout! It's a tough business, there's no free lunch.

x2 With a bit more monthly average

And each day I believe that only those 5% ( with few exceptions ) are entitled to tell anything ( and anywhere ) about any matter in the microstock industry.

Not mean that I agree with everything he says, but after reading the entire text, did not see nothing new that I have not already seen written by the big "guys".

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** July 04, 2012, 06:47 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 18:47

Quote from: ShadySue on July 03, 2012, 18:34
Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00
Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

Let them file a DMCA just like we all have to do. Wouldn't that fall under the same bull$hit fair use clause as the bloggers hide behind?

Quote
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

We certainly are criticizing and commenting.

Oh yes, it's just that any time I mention that clause, people here say it doesn't apply.

leaf · « **Reply #34 on:** July 04, 2012, 07:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 04, 2012, 06:47

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 18:47
Quote from: ShadySue on July 03, 2012, 18:34
Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 14:00
Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 13:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

Let them file a DMCA just like we all have to do. Wouldn't that fall under the same bull$hit fair use clause as the bloggers hide behind?

Quote
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

We certainly are criticizing and commenting.
Oh yes, it's just that any time I mention that clause, people here say it doesn't apply.

I agree with ShadySue .. you could post one paragraph or something as a quote (with link back to the original author) but you couldn't post the entire article.

cclapper · « **Reply #35 on:** July 04, 2012, 07:56 »

Quote from: leaf on July 04, 2012, 07:15

I agree with ShadySue .. you could post one paragraph or something as a quote (with link back to the original author) but you couldn't post the entire article.

That sounds good. Post as a quote, cite the source, add a link. That way if people want to contribute to the bloggers income, they can. For those of us who don't, we can still participate in the conversation.

Or not. Whatever.

Milinz · « **Reply #36 on:** July 04, 2012, 19:39 »

Quote from: Paulo M. F. Pires on July 04, 2012, 05:20

Quote from: RacePhoto on July 04, 2012, 01:05
I averaged 29 cents a download on SS last month. (and I'm happy)

Not everyone has 2000 - 4000 images and not everyone is part of the top 5% of microstock, like many of the people here are.

While the blog may be looking at the dark side, and ignoring the success of some, remember that 50% of the people who get accepted (ignore the thousands who never pass that test) Never Reach Payout! It's a tough business, there's no free lunch.

x2 With a bit more monthly average

And each day I believe that only those 5% ( with few exceptions ) are entitled to tell anything ( and anywhere ) about any matter in the microstock industry.

Not mean that I agree with everything he says, but after reading the entire text, did not see nothing new that I have not already seen written by the big "guys".

Only the top 5% can write and the rest of the people are censored. Do you work for Pravda or the thought police? Only people who are successful can promote their minority opinion.

Batman · « **Reply #37 on:** July 04, 2012, 19:55 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 03, 2012, 08:58

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2012, 07:43
...don´t give up after a paragraph or two..
I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month. Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

Many of his facts are right most of his conclusions are wrong. He's bitter and biased, same old story of someone who wants microstock to fail so he can have things the way they were. It's not going to ever return to the old ways. The blog is a repeat of microstock critics that we've all read for 5 years. Waste of time.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 20, 2012, 10:31 »

don´t remember but I guess this article wasn´t published in MSG, take a look, quite interesting, comments also

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/16/shutterstocks-ipo-plans/

cthoman · « **Reply #39 on:** August 20, 2012, 10:54 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 20, 2012, 10:31

don´t remember but I guess this article wasn´t published in MSG, take a look, quite interesting, comments also

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/16/shutterstocks-ipo-plans/

Those numbers don't seem to add up. They seem to suggest they are paying about 33% ($58 mil of $178 mil). 33% of $3 would be about $1 per sale. That seems way too high (at least compared to what I get). Maybe, affiliates account for the extra, but that doesn't seem to make sense either.

djpadavona · « **Reply #40 on:** August 20, 2012, 12:12 »

I'm unsure what truths he revealed. Basically he read the subscription prices off the SS website, and still managed to flub the facts. The juiciest tidbit of info to come out since the books were opened is that SS pays out a ridiculously low percentage to its contributors. That in itself could have been the basis for an entire article.

I trusted Jon/SS for a long time. But I just don't see how they are any different than IS now that the facts are out. Both are content to keep the vast majority of the profits for themselves and dare contributors to go elsewhere and do better. In fact, I give IS more credit because they didn't lie to us for years about our commission percentage. They just gave us a terrible deal upfront and said, "take it or leave it."

velocicarpo · « **Reply #41 on:** August 20, 2012, 12:36 »

Quote from: djpadavona on August 20, 2012, 12:12

I'm unsure what truths he revealed. Basically he read the subscription prices off the SS website, and still managed to flub the facts. The juiciest tidbit of info to come out since the books were opened is that SS pays out a ridiculously low percentage to its contributors. That in itself could have been the basis for an entire article.

I trusted Jon/SS for a long time. But I just don't see how they are any different than IS now that the facts are out. Both are content to keep the vast majority of the profits for themselves and dare contributors to go elsewhere and do better. In fact, I give IS more credit because they didn't lie to us for years about our commission percentage. They just gave us a terrible deal upfront and said, "take it or leave it."

Exactly what I think / feel....

Lagereek · « **Reply #42 on:** August 20, 2012, 12:37 »

YAWN! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The only thing I do agree on is that, quality contributors will eventually leave the micro business, yes, I am sure of this, micro on the whole is unsustainable, sadly.
I am actually on my way to quit, one for sure, perhaps even two, of the big four micros, its hopeless and getting worse.

The actual con lies in their messing around, search-changes, to suit only them, not the contributors, it ruins hundereds of ports over a night and when it doesnt work, they still dont revert back to its original.

Im afraid, this guy is always writing negativities but unfortuantely some of it is true, not so much regarding SS but most of the others fall into this categoty.

Ed · « **Reply #43 on:** August 20, 2012, 13:15 »

Quote from: jm on July 03, 2012, 14:37

I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Mark Stout was with the micros since the early beginnings. He was a contributor to iStock, Shutterstock (portfolio removed about a year ago), Dreamstime, etc., etc. I took notice of his portfolio a few years ago (mostly because he is here in Denver - there are a few people here in Denver that I've taken notice of). His micro portfolio was very good...then he started pulling his best images until he finally left micro altogether. He is currently selling through his own site. I exchanged messages with him on Facebook a couple of months ago and he is currently only selling RM and only selling through his own website. He stated he is doing well with this approach (earning more than he was on the micros).

He did not have trouble getting into Shutterstock or iStock. If I remember correctly, very early on, he had over 2,000 images on Shutterstock (back in 2007 or so) and he had a very large portfolio on iStock and Dreamstime as well. I don't remember if he was with Fotolio or any of the other agencies.

Lagereek · « **Reply #44 on:** August 21, 2012, 00:19 »

Quote from: Ed on August 20, 2012, 13:15

Quote from: jm on July 03, 2012, 14:37
I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Mark Stout was with the micros since the early beginnings. He was a contributor to iStock, Shutterstock (portfolio removed about a year ago), Dreamstime, etc., etc. I took notice of his portfolio a few years ago (mostly because he is here in Denver - there are a few people here in Denver that I've taken notice of). His micro portfolio was very good...then he started pulling his best images until he finally left micro altogether. He is currently selling through his own site. I exchanged messages with him on Facebook a couple of months ago and he is currently only selling RM and only selling through his own website. He stated he is doing well with this approach (earning more than he was on the micros).

He did not have trouble getting into Shutterstock or iStock. If I remember correctly, very early on, he had over 2,000 images on Shutterstock (back in 2007 or so) and he had a very large portfolio on iStock and Dreamstime as well. I don't remember if he was with Fotolio or any of the other agencies.

Yeah I think I remember him, so what made him turn so viciously against it all?

Ed · « **Reply #45 on:** August 21, 2012, 17:16 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 21, 2012, 00:19

Quote from: Ed on August 20, 2012, 13:15
Quote from: jm on July 03, 2012, 14:37
I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Mark Stout was with the micros since the early beginnings. He was a contributor to iStock, Shutterstock (portfolio removed about a year ago), Dreamstime, etc., etc. I took notice of his portfolio a few years ago (mostly because he is here in Denver - there are a few people here in Denver that I've taken notice of). His micro portfolio was very good...then he started pulling his best images until he finally left micro altogether. He is currently selling through his own site. I exchanged messages with him on Facebook a couple of months ago and he is currently only selling RM and only selling through his own website. He stated he is doing well with this approach (earning more than he was on the micros).

He did not have trouble getting into Shutterstock or iStock. If I remember correctly, very early on, he had over 2,000 images on Shutterstock (back in 2007 or so) and he had a very large portfolio on iStock and Dreamstime as well. I don't remember if he was with Fotolio or any of the other agencies.

Yeah I think I remember him, so what made him turn so viciously against it all?

My understanding is the poor compensation, royalty cuts with agencies, the way contributors are treated, etc. Nothing you don't hear people complaining about on this forum all the time