The good news is that DT (after silently having the 30% in effect the past week)

What 30%?

When a big agency buys some other agency, they actually don't want it because theirs assets, they just want their market...
They don't want double crew members on both side and bigger expenses , they only want their buyers to migrate on their main site...

I agree for this type of business 99% of the time companies acquire similar companies so that they will have access to their customers. 

Probable Reasons for SS acquisition of BigStock acquisition

Acquire a competitor
Acquire their marketshare & customer base to compliment or augment their own
Acquire their revenue stream ("Cash Cow" if BigStock were profitable on its own)
Consolidate infrastructure & eliminate costs where applicable when and whereever possible (likely to happen in the future ... this is where we may see BigStock disappear one day)

Hope that decision to make acquisition is a good one where 1+1 equals 3 when it comes to profit.

Hope the acquisition isn't a bad fit like AOL+Time Warner.


-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com
 

I would like to see them consolidate the upload and review process for dual account contributors.  A "Big Stock opt in" button at Shutterstock would improve everyones productivity. 

And get a clash between the two clans of reviewers with a different culture and acceptance rules? The integration of both sites is, technically and management wise spoken a very costly process that will inevitably produce many glitches, hurting sales and worrying buyers. SS already did some experiments last year by discouraging OD for some content/contributors and that turned out not too well.

If Toyota would acquire Mercedes, they couldn't share the same production belt to make different models. The synergy can only be in developing common parts, sharing the dealers network, get some scale advantage out of shared marketing. All very marginal gains and a long term process. Microstock is very volatile and short-term.

BigStock suffered a major blow after March 2008, probably because some of their major resellers broke down. Anybody remembers the big row after it was discovered that BigStock content was sold on some design sites for 70$ and we still got our 0.5-2$ commission? That was never sorted out decently, just swept under the carpet. Probably SS got it for a bargain.

Most likely is the StockXpert scenario, where BigStock will serve as a redirecting front for SS with some perks for BigStock customers to join SS, pointing them to ODs. SS didn't acquire any fresh content with BigStock since most contributors are uploading on both sites. The only real asset that SS acquired are the BigStock customers. So why keep two different production belts, especially since BigStock customers are bleeding away by the hour to other sites than SS?

.....all I can say about SS reviewers is,  I've had a boatload of rejections the past two weeks all for   "bad lighting"...   sad thing is...  all the  images I submitted  sell on IS.... that's why I uploaded them.
      I look at the pix and just shake my head... bad lighting? 
  oh well, to each his own.  I just figured... they sell on IS...  also,  many of them have been on BigStock for some time...   who knows?   guess all of a sudden I suck  or maybe just now after 4 years they want to tell me I've sucked all along, they were just being kind.   LOL   =tom

Maybe they merged review teams?

Quote from: melastmohican on February 15, 2010, 17:06

Maybe they merged review teams?

Don't know.  I've always had a good acceptance results at both SS & BigStock.  ... who knows...
It doesnt stop me.. I'm still uploading to both.   
   I learned real fast years ago that rejection is part of the every day scheme of things in micro. I don't take it personal and really in the big picture,  couldn't care less.    But sometimes,  I will sit for a moment, stare at a rejected pic and..........  wonder.  I'm not upset... just clueless... ha ha ha.
  No biggie. They're selling elsewhere, I was just trying to up my sales  ( and SS's too- as said, if IS can sell them,  figured SS could too).  Guess not.   Hope they like the next batch!!  LOL   =tom

The other option would be outsourcing reviews to some third-party to cut costs. Some agencies probably already did it. I wonder if such contract require exclusivity of reviewers ?

Quote from: madelaide on February 14, 2010, 14:04

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 14, 2010, 03:57

The good news is that DT (after silently having the 30% in effect the past week)

What 30%?

The reduction to 30% commissions for level 1-2 images they announced last year. The pill was a bit sweetened then by Achilles stating that it would be implemented gradually and only after careful follow-up of sales. It might even never reach 30%. Well it did... as some people on the forum found out.

And how did people find about it?  Since long ago I find DT sales impossible to understand, because of varying credit prices and the different % per level...  I don't have the patience to follow it.

Let me see.  My latest credit sale was a level 2, got US$1.04 for 3 credits, roughly 35c per credit.  Prior to that, in December, the image was a level 1, and I got 40c per credit.  Credits start at US$1.25 down to 77c (for 50,000 credits!).  The guy in DT forum - the only reporting a low value credit - sid 26-30c per credit.  26c looks very low indeed, even at 30% (a 87c sale credit).  But can't this be from partner sales?

(oops. I think we've hijacked the thread.)