MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Bigstock.com => Topic started by: THP Creative on November 10, 2014, 17:27
-
On their homepage it now lists video subscriptions, which takes you to this page:
https://www.bigstockphoto.com/subscribe/ (https://www.bigstockphoto.com/subscribe/)
(http://s11.postimg.org/ekmu8zl0v/Screen_Shot_2014_11_11_at_12_03_23_pm.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/ekmu8zl0v/)
which has the following options for video:
Video Plans
$89/mo
150 videos/mo
150 downloads every month
Any video size including HD
Buy now
$129/mo
500 videos/mo
500 downloads every month
Any video size including HD
Buy now
$149/mo
1000 videos/mo
1000 downloads every month
Any video size including HD
Where are they getting these videos from?
How much are the contributors being paid?
Why haven't we been told anything at all about this?
At the moment I can't see any of my video's on there, which is sweet relief given the apparent pricing structure.
Updated with a screenshot - I can still see it live on the site - YOU MAY NEED TO CLEAR YOUR CACHE TO SEE IT
-
SS still owns BigStock, right?
Why in the world would they create that kind of pricing? :o
That seems exactly like something Getty would do, but I'd have thought SS would avoid such an undercutting of their own pricing. The only thing missing would be SS calling current customers and informing them of the lower sub pricing available at BS. (Yes, IS really did that with ThinkStock. >:()
One of the very best things about SS to me is that the commission for their video subs are more or less the same as the commission on cart sales. I'd really hate to see SS video sub buyers move to BS. :(
PS - I don't see any video prices listed on the link that you gave, only image plans. Either I'm missing something, or you accidentally saw something that you weren't supposed to see. ;D
PPS - In fact, I don't see mention of videos anywhere on BS' site. ??? ???
-
I just added a screenshot in the post above
This seems insane to me too - this pricing is incredibly bad.
I thought the same thing - why is SS allowing this??
-
Well, that just looks scary. And the thought they might get the files from SS .... :o
I still don't see it when I go there, so perhaps it's a regional thing. Anyway, we'll probably learn more soon enough. Good (?) find, though.
-
why is SS allowing this??
SS owns Bigstock. They are not "allowing" this, anything that happens will be directed by Shutterstock.
-
Well, that just looks scary. And the thought they might get the files from SS .... :o
I still don't see it when I go there, so perhaps it's a regional thing. Anyway, we'll probably learn more soon enough. Good (?) find, though.
Thanks, but I'm wishing it wasn't there to find in the first place too. This is a scary move.
Really wish agencies would communicate upcoming changes to contributors. These shock finds are (almost) never welcome.
-
Seems some still can't see any evidence of video on BS. Maybe A/B testing?
In any case, believe me it's there.
Perhaps try this link: http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video/search/sunny/ (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video/search/sunny/)
If not, you'll just have to wait and see it when it becomes live at your end. But you probably don't want to see it, given the crazy pricing...
-
Perhaps try this link: [url]http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video/search/sunny/[/url] ([url]http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video/search/sunny/[/url])
For me, that link just re-directs to bigstockphoto.com, so clearly they are doing some kind of restricted testing. Whatever it is, I hope the test is a huge failure. 8)
Anyone else?
-
Perhaps try this link: [url]http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video/search/sunny/[/url] ([url]http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video/search/sunny/[/url])
For me, that link just re-directs to bigstockphoto.com, so clearly they are doing some kind of restricted testing. Whatever it is, I hope the test is a huge failure. 8)
Anyone else?
I just see image plans. Somebody needs to do screen capture not link.
-
Just to mention. I cleared the cache and re-loaded the page and there it is. Also now shows in your links, right below Images. (where there was nothing before)
I'll guess that it's not a test or rollout by some IP address, it's like the "Undiscovered" that is unseen until someone clears out the old versions of that page from their browser. Same as your post for prices and plans by the way.
$89/mo
150 videos/mo
150 downloads every month
Any video size including HD
I didn't look, maybe some people who do video can see where they are getting these form. I'd be no help.
I just added a screenshot in the post above
This seems insane to me too - this pricing is incredibly bad.
I thought the same thing - why is SS allowing this??
-
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
-
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
Mine don't seem to be there either. I am on the bridge program. That's good unless the video collection is new and Shutterstock intends to move them over.
-
Wow, are all the videos only being sold as extremely cheap subs? You can search for video now, in case that's new too.
-
The really depressing thing is there will be more than enough inventory for them to sell.
-
Wow, 1000 videos per month for 149$! Is it real?
(https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10410900_867921113218597_3214359914168114702_n.jpg?oh=9923c239742803a99768c075ecb47114&oe=54D651F6)
-
I found several products that were available on the main SS site, even some available 4K for those prices. Unbelievable!!
-
Desperation comes in many forms. ;)
-
OMG this is beyond believe! I dont have my account at BS anymore (closed it when the subs came) but i am worried that Shutterstock may just transfer all their videos there. Can they do that? Please Shuttestock confirm to us that this is not happening because otherwise I will have to start deleting my videos from Shutterstock.
-
Glad (?) everyone else can now see what I was talking about.
This is a disgrace, advertising video's for 15 cents each.
Scott from SS - care to chime in on this? Don't suppose anyone from Bigstock will, can't remember seeing them on the forum too often.
-
I suggest you change the name of the thread to get more attention. This is unacceptable even if it's just a test, because if they can do that test, they are obviously very comfortable with that idea of racing to the bottom, even beating DPC by miles here. What 's a nightmare!
-
I suggest you change the name of the thread to get more attention. This is unacceptable even if it's just a test, because if they can do that test, they are obviously very comfortable with that idea of racing to the bottom, even beating DPC by miles here. What 's a nightmare!
Good suggestion, done.
-
Where are they getting the content from? Which video contributor would agree to those prices?
-
Where are they getting the content from? Which video contributor would agree to those prices?
Those are the two questions I think we are all keen to know, but afraid to find out...
-
Where are they getting the content from? Which video contributor would agree to those prices?
Well that 's the question isn't it. Bigstock belongs to Shutterstock. Anything prevents them from bringing the videos over? And, as the new SS contributor agreement states, our deletions wont take effect until 90 days (?) after ?
-
It's so ridiculous that it's hard to believe....
-
Here is the Italian localization.
Tragic!
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/it/ (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/it/)
https://www.bigstockphoto.com/it/subscribe/ (https://www.bigstockphoto.com/it/subscribe/)
-
It certainly needs some clarifying, SS footage sales have been going so well and for really good prices, why would they do this?
-
why would they do this?
Because the SS stock price depends upon maintaining and growing the number of subscribers. Even potentially in the face of smaller revenues per user.
Suppose one quarter they announced that subscriber growth had slowed. It would be seen as the inevitable beginning of the end of their run.
-
If my videos from SS appear there I will certainly cancel my Bigstock account. My 200 videos on Shutterstock earn me several times more monthly than my 7500 images on BS, so it wont be much of a loss.
I really don't understand this. Return per download for videos on Shutterstock is growing nicely, and volume of sales too. Sometimes I get video commissions like 80-150 USD...
-
Wow, we do need some answers quick on this one. How could anyone make money with those prices? It wouldn't be worth uploading and buyers wouldn't use a site with no content. They are probably too small and too late to sell video anyway. Pond5 can't sell many stills and the microstock sites that have left it too late to get in to video can't get buyers. Selling out like this wont work and it just makes me wonder what on earth SS are trying to achieve with BigStock? Don't they see that things like this tarnish SS?
-
i contacted support to kill all my files at bigstock. This guys.. >:(
-
Everyone speaks well of shutter but it was they who killed the price of the photos.
Now they want to kill the video.
-
Checked, and my videos are not there.
We should find out where do they get the content from. And do the content owners know about this?
-
At this price point BigStock may be the owner of these videos. Without owning them outright I don't see anyway they could sell video files for 15 cents. Maybe that is the direction stock is going????
-
Lol.
I've never pulled my portfolio from any agency, not from iStock with their shenanigans, not from FT or DP. I just stopped uploading. But now I'm at a point that I don't even care anymore and BS might be the first to lose my portfolio. Not a big blow to them (especially since I stopped uploading there a year ago), but I'll feel like I did something.
-
If my videos get pipelined over to Bigstock with those prices I will have no choice but to pull them from SS. That leaves only p5 who makes me any money, forcing me to reconsider video exclusivity with Istock.
-
This is Shutterstock doings, not Bigstock. There is no Bigstock per se anymore. Bigstock is under Shutterstock management and is the experimental playground for Shuttestock. I dont have my account at Bigstock anymore so i dont worry about Bigstock as itself. But this definitely has strongly shaken my trust in Shutterstock. Especially now that you can only pull your port with a 90 days delay, they can do anything they want to you for at least 90 days. And, given that they are the largest source of income for most of us, they may screw us up anytime now and most of us can still do nothing about it.
-
If my videos get pipelined over to Bigstock with those prices I will have no choice but to pull them from SS. That leaves only p5 who makes me any money, forcing me to reconsider video exclusivity with Istock.
In case SS is reading this, I agree wholeheartedly. I will only deal with agencies that have a future for their contributors. >:( >:( >:(
If you're not already pulling out of BigStock, I'd jump to it.
-
We need urgent explanation from SS! ASAP
-
Should we post this to SS forum?
-
Our apologies for any confusion. As many of you know, Bigstock is oriented towards the consumer market and independent creatives and the needs of that audience are different than traditional stock footage customers (think of enthusiastic YouTube creators vs. professional video editors). Bigstock is developing a small collection of videos to test how first-time and casual footage customers respond to different entry-level products. The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. The collection will be limited and these early packages represent some initial efforts to test and generate interest in footage among non-traditional buyers. We will continue to work with participating contributors as we learn more about this new market.
Michal on behalf of Bigstock
-
I don't get why a casual buyer would be offered 1,000 downloads a month?
-
Our apologies for any confusion. As many of you know, Bigstock is oriented towards the consumer market and independent creatives and the needs of that audience are different than traditional stock footage customers (think of enthusiastic YouTube creators vs. professional video editors). Bigstock is developing a small collection of videos to test how first-time and casual footage customers respond to different entry-level products. The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. The collection will be limited and these early packages represent some initial efforts to test and generate interest in footage among non-traditional buyers. We will continue to work with participating contributors as we learn more about this new market.
Michal on behalf of Bigstock
And how do you stop "traditional buyers" from using this opportunity?
Even if you want to provide a cheaper option for different audienece, why should vidos be cheaper than still images?
-
This undercuts every other site and all contributors. If your goal is to destroy the market for video this is a fine plan.
There are 30,303 videos as of today.
-
SS/Bigstock, this is a BAD direction to go.
You have a lot of goodwill with video contributors but this is the first step towards destroying that. And it's a BIG step! Please reconsider.
-
I ditched BigStock and I don't contribute video anywhere, but this sort of half-answer bothers me a lot.
1) Cheap, high volume subscription pricing would appear to risk siphoning off buyers of higher quality content (as low priced photo subscriptions siphoned off buyers from macro agencies back when Shutterstock opened its doors). Granted, SS quality has increased massively since the beginning, but why wouldn't the same trajectory happen with video?
2) The fact that some contributors are OK with selling their work at very low prices (not just this BigStock video, but things like Fotolia's awful DPC) doesn't make it a good thing for contributors overall. What one group does has an effect on the whole contributor community, not just on the people willingly submitting.
3) I think that it's possible you won't increase the market for clips by cutting the price - there are all sorts of reasons to use photos or illustrations vs. video on lots of web sites, and price is only one part of the story. What that then means is you start conditioning the existing pool of buyers to expect lower prices.
High volume/low price can work - that's what allowed Shutterstock to be such a success. But low volume/low price is just awful for contributors - which is where subscriptions just about everywhere else have ended up. The other agencies want to have what SS does but they can't get the volume up.
It seems to me that SS might want to test things out at BigStock so that they can see if they can develop a market while avoiding having any impact on existing video sales at SS. The evolution of microstock from the traditional agencies - of which SS was a major part - suggests that this idea of keeping different parts separate so one doesn't affect the other is naive.
Just because it's "appropriately" licensed and contributors volunteered, doesn't make it a good thing for contributors as a whole.
-
Our apologies for any confusion. As many of you know, Bigstock is oriented towards the consumer market and independent creatives and the needs of that audience are different than traditional stock footage customers (think of enthusiastic YouTube creators vs. professional video editors). Bigstock is developing a small collection of videos to test how first-time and casual footage customers respond to different entry-level products. The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. The collection will be limited and these early packages represent some initial efforts to test and generate interest in footage among non-traditional buyers. We will continue to work with participating contributors as we learn more about this new market.
Michal on behalf of Bigstock
Michal, there is nothing "casual" or "entry-level" about the video collection offered. They are mostly high quality clips, including complex CGI shots. It is the exact same material that "traditional stock footage customers" buy, but at a fraction of the cost. A massive price drop like this can be highly destructive to the marketplace. As a Shutterstock video/image contributor and Bigstock image contributor, I urge your company to realize the damage you are risking to both your profitability and your contributors' income, and immediately stop this experiment.
I urge other video contributors to contact Shutterstock and Bigstock and ask them to stop this massive price-drop experiment before it damages the market and our income.
Contributor support at Shutterstock: [email protected]
Email for Bigstock: [email protected]
-
Crap. I just started uploading a few pix after 3 years. I should just delete everything. I don't do video, but if the people making the decisions are that dense, what is next for the rest of the agency?
-
I just emailed this to Bigstock and Shutterstock, I encourage others to write to them as well:
As an image and video contributor on Shutterstock and image contributor on Bigstock, I'm strongly against the massive price drop that Bigstock is offering on video clips. These are quality clips that are offered for a fair price on other sites but sell for only pennies on Bigstock. This can only have an extremely damaging effect on the market and contributor income, as buyers who find out about it will naturally buy on Bigstock instead of Shutterstock. You are creating a race to the bottom that greatly devalues the work of contributors. If this experiment continues and the market price of video clips plummets, you will destroy the industry, as it won't be economically feasible for contributors to create quality video clips in exchange for pennies. Please immediately stop this terribly damaging and short-sighted experiment.
-
Not a video contributor, but... I had stopped uploading to Bigstock after introduction of subs there a year ago. Now I think it is time to pull what's still there. It's not like I will particularly miss those two beers per year.
-
Our apologies for any confusion. As many of you know, Bigstock is oriented towards the consumer market and independent creatives and the needs of that audience are different than traditional stock footage customers (think of enthusiastic YouTube creators vs. professional video editors). Bigstock is developing a small collection of videos to test how first-time and casual footage customers respond to different entry-level products. The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. The collection will be limited and these early packages represent some initial efforts to test and generate interest in footage among non-traditional buyers. We will continue to work with participating contributors as we learn more about this new market.
Michal on behalf of Bigstock
This is just whooey. The same argument was given years ago about how micro was just for small users and RF was just for low budget mom and pop operations. You are creating a problem by setting ridiculously low prices that other buyers will want from other collections, all to no one's benefit.
-
This is Shutterstock doings, not Bigstock. There is no Bigstock per se anymore. Bigstock is under Shutterstock management and is the experimental playground for Shuttestock.
I dont have my account at Bigstock anymore so i dont worry about Bigstock as itself. But this definitely has strongly shaken my trust in Shutterstock. Especially now that you can only pull your port with a 90 days delay, they can do anything they want to you for at least 90 days. And, given that they are the largest source of income for most of us, they may screw us up anytime now and most of us can still do nothing about it.
I completely agree and shutterstock is now run by the venture capital crowd.
This is who is key in making decisions now. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/help-looking-for-list-of-negatives-stock-events/msg385570/#msg385570 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/help-looking-for-list-of-negatives-stock-events/msg385570/#msg385570)
They worry about stock prices & granting themselves further options at a cost of $0, once they have sold what they currently hold via autotrades each month.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/help-looking-for-list-of-negatives-stock-events/msg385570/#msg385570 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/help-looking-for-list-of-negatives-stock-events/msg385570/#msg385570)
-
This is very worrying news indeed. On fotolia at least the subs download was limited to web size files.
There is no market saturation in video, the whole market is just starting out.
if they really want to offer lower price files, then they could offer different price points and allow the contributor to opt in voluntarily with individual files. testshots or outtakes.
But to opt in all files is very strange. they know that the contributors did not upload their content for this price model.
I was just talking about Bigstock with a friend yesterday, wondering if uploading videos to Bigstock was a good idea.
But I suppose this means we have to stay away.
i sincerly hope SS will not copy this model. i really like working with SS.
so this looks like really bad news.
-
When BigStock introduced bargain basement subscriptions for photos & illustrations last year with insane royalties I wrote asking for an opt out (I was not part of the bridge program, either because I'm too small a fish or because I was exclusive when it was started and they didn't continue to add contributors).
They said no, so I left.
I am glad that the toxic royalty scheme of BigStock subscriptions hasn't migrated to Shutterstock - which is what I was afraid of. I don't think writing to anyone will make any difference - they need to be starved of content which is the only message they'll pay any attention to.
It should be fairly easy for major contributors to pull their video from BigStock - I'm assuming they're no bigger an earner there than with other media. I don't know if contacting those who have opted in to this program to ask them to reconsider and opt out would do any good, but that would get some attention.
When iStock was trying to get contributors to opt in to the Partner Program (way back when) and the royalties were such crap that many of us didn't, they came back to the table a few months later with improved royalties (they were still crap and not an incentive to change, IMO). Sites can change the deal if they don't get enough content (obviously things since have shown there's no stopping an agency that repeatedly pushes the self destruct button).
Anyone know their way around the video contributor community enough to have a clue as to how to contact those who are supplying this mess?
-
i sincerly hope SS will not copy this model. i really like working with SS.
What? This is Shutterstock's model, they own Bigstock. Do you think Bigstock did this without Shutterstock knowing? How would that even be possible.
-
One of my goals for next year was to start shooting stock video to shore up my dropping income from stills. Now I don't see the point of uploading video. This the first step to eroding the whole market. Video can't be produced or sold in the volumes of stills, which is why it needs to sell at much higher prices to make it viable to produce.
And for the SS fan club, wake up. This is their doing.
-
YouTube quality? Bollocks! Does this person think we won't take a look?
You tell me if either of these look like YouTube cheap and cheerful to you - they sure as heck don't to me! I just did two searches and there were HUNDREDS of thousands of results for both.
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video-75113944/ (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video-75113944/)
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video-75033223/ (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video-75033223/)
Here are the producers' SS portfolios (1,700+ clips in one and over 5K for the other)
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/BigFootSLV-2691292/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/BigFootSLV-2691292/)
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/ESB-Films-1903019/ (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/ESB-Films-1903019/)
-
i sincerly hope SS will not copy this model. i really like working with SS.
What? This is Shutterstock's model, they own Bigstock. Do you think Bigstock did this without Shutterstock knowing? How would that even be possible.
it will keep the market share growing, that has been the strategy of SS since day one. you either support it or you don't. nuff said.
-
i sincerly hope SS will not copy this model. i really like working with SS.
What? This is Shutterstock's model, they own Bigstock. Do you think Bigstock did this without Shutterstock knowing? How would that even be possible.
it will keep the market share growing, that has been the strategy of SS since day one. you either support it or you don't. nuff said.
Yep we heard that with Fotolia's DPC. It was a bad argument then and it is a bad argument now.
-
i am sure this is SS's idea. But this doesn't mean it will be automatically transferred to SS.
My video income is 90% pond5 and SS. So having to drop SS, or downgrading them to a place "for testshots only" would be really sad.
Mostly I worry about agencies taking in content under one business model, then abruptly changing that business model without giving us an opt out, the way fotolia did with DPC.
if this new subscription offer was a new standalone agency and they invited contributors to upload content...
who would send them files for this?
I think they would have a very hard time attracting normal content.
-
i am sure this is SS's idea. But this doesn't mean it will be automatically transferred to SS.
My video income is 90% pond5 and SS. So having to drop SS, or downgrading them to a place "for testshots only" would be really sad.
I hope you wouldn't even consider uploading test shots if they are going to be sold for 15 cents.
-
This is very worrying news indeed. On fotolia at least the subs download was limited to web size files.
There is no market saturation in video, the whole market is just starting out.
if they really want to offer lower price files, then they could offer different price points and allow the contributor to opt in voluntarily with individual files. testshots or outtakes.
But to opt in all files is very strange. they know that the contributors did not upload their content for this price model.
I was just talking about Bigstock with a friend yesterday, wondering if uploading videos to Bigstock was a good idea.
But I suppose this means we have to stay away.
i sincerly hope SS will not copy this model. i really like working with SS.
so this looks like really bad news.
It is not strange at all, "If" you consider who we are actually dealing with.
The VC crowd stands to make many more millions by driving up SSTK stock prices, than they ever will via microstock or video revenue. These guys are in it for the short term and they will do what ever it takes to get what they want.
It is abundantly obvious that they do not consider the welfare of contributors.
If contributors fail to stand up to them, we can count on video pricing following microstock's downward trend. We are dealing with the same company who has not raised pricing or given raises since 2008 so that they could capture the lions share of the market.
Insight Venture Capitol also own a significant portion of SSTK stock under various entities. These are large and easily tracked INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC
SSTK Insider Activity (SEC Form 4)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades)
Top 5 Insider Trades
SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC 2,835,697
ORINGER JONATHAN 2,530,000
INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,610,000
INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,610,000
INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P 1,300,000
Top 5 Holders of Institutional Holdings
1. PRICE T ROWE ASSOCIATES INC /MD/ 2,729,747
2. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/MN 1,923,913
3. WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO LLP 1,344,486
4. JACKSON SQUARE PARTNERS, LLC 1,318,414
5. INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC 1,289,748
Insight Venture Partners
Creating a Successful IPO
http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdf (http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdf)
Re the Above Document reports that Insight Venture Partners worked closely with Jon, to recruit a new executive team at Shutterstock, in particular the President, CFO, CTO, VPCD and other mid-level managers.
Shutterstock Team At Insight Venture Partners: Jeff Lieberman, Jeff Horing, Hilary Gosher, Cian Cotter
Jeff Lieberman Board Director At Shutterstock, Inc.
Independent Director at Shutterstock, Inc. and a Managing Director at Insight Venture Management LLC. He is on the Board of Directors at Cvent, Inc., Shutterstock, Inc., Call24, Inc., HauteLook, Inc., Karmaloop, Inc., Ecova, Inc., Mimecast Ltd., and Tongal, Inc.
http://people.equilar.com/bio/jeffrey-lieberman-cvent--inc./salary/530332#.U6hBt7FRdeA (http://people.equilar.com/bio/jeffrey-lieberman-cvent--inc./salary/530332#.U6hBt7FRdeA)
Insight Venture Partners Tech Support
Mentored and worked closely with shutterstocks existing technology development team prior to James Chou CTO joining Shutterstock
James Chou CTO
Chief Technology Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.
Insight Venture Partners Introduced James Chou to Shutterstock from Insight’s network
http://people.equilar.com/bio/james-chou-shutterstock--inc./salary/800789#.U6hB8LFRdeA (http://people.equilar.com/bio/james-chou-shutterstock--inc./salary/800789#.U6hB8LFRdeA)
Thilo Semmelbauer President
President and Chief Operating Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.
http://people.equilar.com/bio/thilo-semmelbauer-shutterstock--inc./salary/723350#.U6hCVrFRdeA (http://people.equilar.com/bio/thilo-semmelbauer-shutterstock--inc./salary/723350#.U6hCVrFRdeA)
Timothy E. Bixby CFO
Chief Financial Officer at Shutterstock, Inc.
http://people.equilar.com/bio/timothy-bixby-shutterstock--inc./salary/27954#.U6hCp7FRdeA (http://people.equilar.com/bio/timothy-bixby-shutterstock--inc./salary/27954#.U6hCp7FRdeA)
David Fraga VPCD
Vice President, Corporate Development at Shutterstock
Previously an Insight Venture Partners Employee - Analyst at Insight Venture Partners
http://tinyurl.com/q4xdd6k (http://tinyurl.com/q4xdd6k)
Recent INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT's SSTK stock sales. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractions (http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractions)
http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/insight-holdings-group-llc-651789 (http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/insight-holdings-group-llc-651789)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary#ixzz3IafANBvJ (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary#ixzz3IafANBvJ)
-
i would need to see proof of super high volume downloads, like hundreds a day or thousands a week. like on istock in 2004 with photos.
but I doubt the video market will ever have a size where 30 cent sub downloads will bring sensible returns.
It is too specialized, video has never been as big a hobby as photography.
-
Our apologies for any confusion. As many of you know, Bigstock is oriented towards the consumer market and independent creatives and the needs of that audience are different than traditional stock footage customers (think of enthusiastic YouTube creators vs. professional video editors). Bigstock is developing a small collection of videos to test how first-time and casual footage customers respond to different entry-level products. The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. The collection will be limited and these early packages represent some initial efforts to test and generate interest in footage among non-traditional buyers. We will continue to work with participating contributors as we learn more about this new market.
Michal on behalf of Bigstock
If this moves forward will the bridge program FORCE IN OUR VIDEOS or will we be able to opt out? It is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that we have an opt out from this scheme to erode video to worse than photos.
-
i would need to see proof of super high volume downloads, like hundreds a day or thousands a week. like on istock in 2004 with photos.
but I doubt the video market will ever have a size where 30 cent sub downloads will bring sensible returns.
It is too specialized, video has never been as big a hobby as photography.
The good salesperson from BS, is that a poetic coincidence by the way, will say that by stretching the market with "affordable" downloads, that such numbers would happen naturally. We'd all get rich. Math is so much fun when you keep it theortical.
-
This is total crap and makes me glad I am exclusive today! I took a look at the videos and there is some high end content there.
-
Our apologies for any confusion. As many of you know, Bigstock is oriented towards the consumer market and independent creatives and the needs of that audience are different than traditional stock footage customers (think of enthusiastic YouTube creators vs. professional video editors). Bigstock is developing a small collection of videos to test how first-time and casual footage customers respond to different entry-level products. The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. The collection will be limited and these early packages represent some initial efforts to test and generate interest in footage among non-traditional buyers. We will continue to work with participating contributors as we learn more about this new market.
Michal on behalf of Bigstock
This is the almost identical argument that iStock / Getty used when they first introduced Thinkstock: It was aimed at an entirely different market and buyers who didn't overlap iStock's traditional customers.
We all know how true that argument was.
However, true or not, the very idea of giving away (almost literally) clips at these prices undermines the entire market. SS should know better, but apparently doesn't. >:(
-
This is total crap and makes me glad I am exclusive today! I took a look at the videos and there is some high end content there.
At a place that reduced the pricing of video by a factor of 3?
-
I am exclusive and my $$ per sale has gone up not down!
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
-
i contacted support to kill all my files at bigstock. This guys.. >:(
Make sure they confirm the deletion of their servers as they just hide your portfolio. You need to demand they delete them from their servers otherwise they wont.
-
This is total crap and makes me glad I am exclusive today! I took a look at the videos and there is some high end content there.
At a place that reduced the pricing of video by a factor of 3?
Good point. Selling video at iStock for between $48 and $65 is about the same as selling video at Bigstock for between 60 cents and 15 cents a clip. Shutterstock is selling the same videos for $79 that they are now selling for 15 cents, can you tell us what factor that is reduced by?
-
I am exclusive and my $$ per sale has gone up not down!
Yes, but with the continuing pressure to reduce prices, as with this post, you are not immune. And should be well aware of how quickly things change.
-
This is total crap and makes me glad I am exclusive today! I took a look at the videos and there is some high end content there.
At a place that reduced the pricing of video by a factor of 3?
Good point. Selling video at iStock for between $48 and $65 is about the same as selling video at Bigstock for between 60 cents and 15 cents a clip.
I never thought I'd say this but if BigStock and SS moves forward with this without an opt out, pond 5 does not make me enough money to remain Indy. I would seriously consider putting all of my video eggs into the Istock basket simply because they pay somewhat better and pipe some or all of the videos to Getty. Certainly I hope Bigstock/SS offers opt outs. In any event, Bigstock can spin it any way they want....a buyer who is paying full price on shutterstock that learns they can get the same video on Bigstock for. 99.9% discount will most certainly move there for their purchases. Bigstock isn't going to tell them no because they aren't the right purchasing demographic. They will gladly take their money even though they say it targets a different set of buyers, which is utter bullsh1t.
-
This is total crap and makes me glad I am exclusive today! I took a look at the videos and there is some high end content there.
At a place that reduced the pricing of video by a factor of 3?
Good point. Selling video at iStock for between $48 and $65 is about the same as selling video at Bigstock for between 60 cents and 15 cents a clip. Shutterstock is selling the same videos for $79 that they are now selling for 15 cents, can you tell us what factor that is reduced by?
I'm not sure what your point is. "Selling for" and "getting paid" are also factors. This deal with BS is just that, but true to form, all of a sudden, iStock isn't so bad anymore.
-
This is total crap and makes me glad I am exclusive today! I took a look at the videos and there is some high end content there.
At a place that reduced the pricing of video by a factor of 3?
Good point. Selling video at iStock for between $48 and $65 is about the same as selling video at Bigstock for between 60 cents and 15 cents a clip. Shutterstock is selling the same videos for $79 that they are now selling for 15 cents, can you tell us what factor that is reduced by?
I'm not sure what your point is. "Selling for" and "getting paid" are also factors. This deal with BS is just that, but true to form, all of a sudden, iStock isn't so bad anymore.
I guess my point is that when Shutterstock is reducing the cost of videos by a factor of more than 525 iStock's reduction looks pretty small.
-
I get $19 for a video on SS, I need to sell that same video 127 times now on BS to make the same. There is no chance in hell that the 'regular' consumer market will be good for that kind of volume on BS. Shutterstock is controlling the image market, if they upped their prices, other agencies dont have to keep looking for the bottom line, they could ease up as well and increase pricing with Shutterstock. But no, the market leader just went beyond the unimaginable and dropped video prices to 15 cent. It is just atrocious.
-
i am sure this is SS's idea. But this doesn't mean it will be automatically transferred to SS.
My video income is 90% pond5 and SS. So having to drop SS, or downgrading them to a place "for testshots only" would be really sad.
I hope you wouldn't even consider uploading test shots if they are going to be sold for 15 cents.
or 12 euro cent, you cant make this stuff up. probably 10 pence. f.f.s
-
I get $19 for a video on SS, I need to sell that same video 127 times now on BS to make the same. There is no chance in hell that the 'regular' consumer market will be good for that kind of volume on BS. Shutterstock is controlling the image market, if they upped their prices, other agencies dont have to keep looking for the bottom line, they could ease up as well and increase pricing with Shutterstock. But no, the market leader just went beyond the unimaginable and dropped video prices to 15 cent. It is just atrocious.
Right. I won't support it. As a contributor who prefers to support fair trade it's hard to balance that with my revenue needs. I will end up eating my own words that I will never go exclusive. The real danger here is creating a DPC of video for all to follow. And as many of you smart folks have stated in past threads the ONLY way to stop this is to get every video contributor to remove their ports and that simply isn't going to happen with enough critical mass to make a real, sustainable difference.
-
i am sure this is SS's idea. But this doesn't mean it will be automatically transferred to SS.
My video income is 90% pond5 and SS. So having to drop SS, or downgrading them to a place "for testshots only" would be really sad.
I hope you wouldn't even consider uploading test shots if they are going to be sold for 15 cents.
or 12 euro cent, you cant make this stuff up. probably 10 pence. f.f.s
It's even crazier that the most popular video on Shutterstock for 'blowing bubbles' is being offered on Bigstock at less than 1% of the price. How could that contributor agree to it?
-
Hiring a helicopter and doing aerial shoots over Istanbul has been done and for sale on Bigstock footage. It will only take 34,354 downloads to become profitable - quite tempting really
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video-74473681/ (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/video-74473681/)
-
i am sure this is SS's idea. But this doesn't mean it will be automatically transferred to SS.
My video income is 90% pond5 and SS. So having to drop SS, or downgrading them to a place "for testshots only" would be really sad.
I hope you wouldn't even consider uploading test shots if they are going to be sold for 15 cents.
or 12 euro cent, you cant make this stuff up. probably 10 pence. f.f.s
It's even crazier that the most popular video on Shutterstock for 'blowing bubbles' is being offered on Bigstock at less than 1% of the price. How could that contributor agree to it?
That's a point I made in another post. A 99% discount.
-
You cannot trust any company which is listed on the stock market and which is in the hands of shareholders. In fact, I think this scheme currently running large parts of the economy is just distorted capitalism and should be banned and punished.
1. As a matter of definition the main goal of such a legal entity (shareholded and p. listed company) is to produce pure profit and increasing the profits continuously compared to the previous quarter.
2. This goal has a strategic horizon of 3 month. No long term strategy will be applied - in most cases.
3. The output product is almost always unproductive (pure liquidity without any necessary real application beyond the joy of the shareholders to have a couple of zeros more in their accounts). Investments reduce Profit. Sustainable thinking and strategy reduces Profit. Empathy reduces Profit.
Cleared profit might be invested later on but by experience these investments are rarely beneficial for those on the bottom of the economic pyramid or consist e.g. in financial re-investments or a nice new office in a expensive building in Manhattan. These spendings do not result - or very little - in any real productivity.
4. The method of increasing Profit is first and foremost by increasing market share. This is done by e.g. creating a good product and a good offer to the consumer (the nicest part of the process) and later by e.g. lowering prices and thus gaining market share from the competition. But no market can grow forever no matter how aggressive and successful the strategy is. This means that at some point...
5. ...the company has to reduce production costs. Squeeze suppliers, reduce quality, simplify processes, fire people etc.
6. The company eventually will end up at point 5 since there are only few possible escape routes from this scheme and will fail at some moment for whatever reason.
Under the current regime, we destroy nature, sacrifice our lifetime, cut down trees, enslave ourselves and our creativity, burn down woods, mistreat animals, .... for the marvelous outcome that some d*** who bought some papers somewhere is happy to see some abstract numbers without inherit value going up. Even if this shareholder will spend this abstract value in the form of any fiat currency it is unlikely that this value returns to the consumer base. It is more likely - again- to be re-invested as a pure financial product or that it is simply spent on luxury goods for the benefit of few other companies.
Or, in simpler words: we eat up the world to create a infinite number of fiat money without real value.
Shutterstock is no different. No raise. No new features for Contributors. Lousy and incompetent inspection process (but surely cost effective...lol). No support of creativity and investment security (collections). Allowance of copycats. Not even a simple database feature (optional sensitive usage) or a additional payout method (payoneer) which some of us desire so badly.
Their revenue has gone up by 40% in the last quarter? (? - don`t remember the exact number, can be found here in the recent thread) Well, but certainly not mine. I always have to expand and invest and work more for the same revenue. This is why the gap between poor and rich is widening so fast and the middle class is disappearing in so many parts of the world.
But hey, we got a fancy world map showing our latest sales!
-
With this move SS is full of BS :o
-
I am well aware of iStock and Getty trends! I do this for a living and have been submitting since 2006. I am aware that no place is safe. Bottom line is I do what is best for me $$ wise and being exclusive works a lot better for me! To each their own and I hate for the whole industry when this happens! Even if I am exclusive I still feel shafted.
-
I am well aware of iStock and Getty trends! I do this for a living and have been submitting since 2006. I am aware that no place is safe. Bottom line is I do what is best for me $$ wise and being exclusive works a lot better for me! To each their own and I hate for the whole industry when this happens! Even if I am exclusive I still feel shafted.
I hear you, Jjneff the main reason is that one company will create an industry wide problem that isn't reversible.
-
Bump
-
Selling videos at 15 cents each how much do contributors get. Maybe 6 or 7 cents a sale. Clearly you don't think BigStock is going to give contributors all of the big money.
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million.
To date the SSTK take for stock shares sold by key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding stock sales by INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC.
Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings.
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
-
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
This sums it quite well. Since P5 got external funding I've been holding my breath expecting the standard, " in light of current financial.... and need to sustain growth... percentages will be reduced...."
-
i am out of bigstock since today. what a waste of contributors :)
stupid prices.. lose lose situation
-
Selling videos at 15 cents each how much do contributors get. Maybe 6 or 7 cents a sale. Clearly you don't think BigStock is going to give contributors all of the big money.
I am curious what contributors are getting for a sale - probably more than .15 since as we all know the number of subs actually downloaded is quite a bit less than the maximum allowed.
BS - that is total BS. you aren't trying to sell only to youtube people, you are playing in your sandbox to see if you can make more $ with rock bottom offerings - similar to what you do with stills too - undercutting SS.
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million.
To date the SSTK take for share sold for key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC.
Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings.
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
No matter how much you wind yourself up into a frenzy, no matter how many times you regurgitate and re-post the same half-arsed conspiracy theories ... the truth is that absolutely nothing has changed in the two years since the IPO. Other than SS becoming even more successful by following the same path as before that is.
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million.
To date the SSTK take for share sold for key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC.
Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings.
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
No matter how much you wind yourself up into a frenzy, no matter how many times you regurgitate and re-post the same half-arsed conspiracy theories ... the truth is that absolutely nothing has changed in the two years since the IPO. Other than SS becoming even more successful by following the same path as before that is.
Nothing has changed yet AT SHUTTERSTOCK, but how can you possibly ignore this gutting of the video market by their subsidiary, Bigstock? Or for that matter the introduction of subs and the pitiful tier system they put in place for BS contributors who weren't in Bridge? In both cases, undercutting sales on SS. Weren't you one of the loudest voices complaining when Istock did the same things with Thinkstock? Sorry, but your fanboy routine for SS seems pretty inconsistent with your stands against other companies for similar behaviour.
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million.
To date the SSTK take for share sold for key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC.
Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings.
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
No matter how much you wind yourself up into a frenzy, no matter how many times you regurgitate and re-post the same half-arsed conspiracy theories ... the truth is that absolutely nothing has changed in the two years since the IPO. Other than SS becoming even more successful by following the same path as before that is.
That is right, I guess you missed the fact that they are utilizing Bigstock to do the dirty work once again.
You will defend them until their detrimental moves toward contributors have become absolutely undeniable.
I suppose you will keep your vids opted in at BS.
-
if ever there was a time to pull all of your work to send a very clear message that this is not acceptable, this is it. it's crap or get of the pot time.
-
Stock photography is kinda like prostitution. You know you are going to do it , now you just established how cheap you are willing to do it.
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million.
To date the SSTK take for share sold for key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC.
Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings.
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
No matter how much you wind yourself up into a frenzy, no matter how many times you regurgitate and re-post the same half-arsed conspiracy theories ... the truth is that absolutely nothing has changed in the two years since the IPO. Other than SS becoming even more successful by following the same path as before that is.
So do you understand why they let BigStock go down a different path that looks more like the disastrous istock way of treating their contributors so badly they end up leaving? I can only hope that they treat BigStock as if it was an independent business, and they have nothing to do with the way the site is run, but it still reflects badly on SS because everyone knows they own it. Looking at the earnings poll and my earnings, BigStock has not done well since the SS takeover. I can see it falling back in to low earners and then there will be no reason to have a portfolio there. I think they should either close it and send all the customers to SS or go for the higher end of the market. Low commissions and low sales volume is a disaster for us all, as istock has proved in recent years.
-
Mind boggling that Shutterstock can be selling a high volume of footage clips for great prices one moment, and then introduce footage sales at world record low prices the next, in fact footage sales even cheaper than DFC giveaway photo prices. It's not April, so what's going on? Is there a collective wish at SS to wind down and bankrupt the company? Are they on drugs?
There is a collective wish at shutterstock to drive up stock prices... Annual revenue at shutterstock is 235.52Million.
To date the SSTK take for share sold for key inside investors is 351.5 Million excluding INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC.
Just think what their take must be when you add in their larger holdings.
Again these guys are in it for the short term and they do not give a rats @$$ what happens to the video market long term. By then they will be cashed out and will have moved on to the next vehicle/victim.
No matter how much you wind yourself up into a frenzy, no matter how many times you regurgitate and re-post the same half-arsed conspiracy theories ... the truth is that absolutely nothing has changed in the two years since the IPO. Other than SS becoming even more successful by following the same path as before that is.
So do you understand why they let BigStock go down a different path that looks more like the disastrous istock way of treating their contributors so badly they end up leaving? I can only hope that they treat BigStock as if it was an independent business, and they have nothing to do with the way the site is run, but it still reflects badly on SS because everyone knows they own it. Looking at the earnings poll and my earnings, BigStock has not done well since the SS takeover. I can see it falling back in to low earners and then there will be no reason to have a portfolio there. I think they should either close it and send all the customers to SS or go for the higher end of the market. Low commissions and low sales volume is a disaster for us all, as istock has proved in recent years.
Because is instills an idea into people's heads. Case in point this comment from above."I guess my point is that when Shutterstock is reducing the cost of videos by a factor of more than 525 iStock's reduction looks pretty small." This person sees the iStock reduction as just fine. Any future adjustment at SS would be viewed as not too bad when compared to others.
-
What do I get paid for my hard work is the first question. If I were non-exclusive I probably wouldn't be loading to iStock either! I find the iStock/Getty connection to be of more value to me in both money and time. Do I have a plan "B" yes! I have a plan "C" and "D" as well. Companies will always look out for their bottom line and I expect that. I don't take decisions personally as no one really cares about my work but me. These are all companies trying to make as much profit as possible and doing it on our backs. Make decisions that are best for you $$ wise and forget about saying company X is better then company Z. Focus on producing compelling content and rising above the storm. The better work you produce the more other doors will open for you!
-
What do I get paid for my hard work is the first question. If I were non-exclusive I probably wouldn't be loading to iStock either! I find the iStock/Getty connection to be of more value to me in both money and time. Do I have a plan "B" yes! I have a plan "C" and "D" as well. Companies will always look out for their bottom line and I expect that. I don't take decisions personally as no one really cares about my work but me. These are all companies trying to make as much profit as possible and doing it on our backs. Make decisions that are best for you $$ wise and forget about saying company X is better then company Z. Focus on producing compelling content and rising above the storm. The better work you produce the more other doors will open for you!
The old glass half full optimist.
-
Because is instills an idea into people's heads. Case in point this comment from above."I guess my point is that when Shutterstock is reducing the cost of videos by a factor of more than 525 iStock's reduction looks pretty small." This person sees the iStock reduction as just fine. Any future adjustment at SS would be viewed as not too bad when compared to others.
I didn't say it was just fine, I would like prices to be higher everywhere. You said iStock is undercutting the market by reducing pricing by a factor of 3, were you complaining that Shutterstock was undercutting the market before then? I said it looks pretty small in comparison, it's not even actually undercutting the market. Look at Dreamstime or 123RF where prices are already at the low end of that range, or Pond5 and you can see many people selling their work for 10 dollars. 15 cents per video is in a whole different category. Many people would be ok with selling video for 50 dollars or more (as seen at Pond5) but no one should be ok with selling video for 15 cents.
-
I'm ok if they sell my videos for 15 cents as long as I will be getting around 20 dollars per download ;D
-
I can't understand why they would even want the customers who can only afford might-as-well-be-free!!!!
-
I'm ok if they sell my videos for 15 cents as long as I will be getting around 20 dollars per download ;D
Funny, but if you were serious, I'd disagree. Except for a brief promotional intro, conditioning buyers to accept those prices would be very bad news. And then there's the Mr. Mickawber issue of income being less than expenses...
-
You bet I am an optimist! I set my own hours, See my family more, Shoot what I love, Earn money while I sleep, I am never bored, I love the challenge. In short I have the perfect job!
-
You bet I am an optimist! I set my own hours, See my family more, Shoot what I love, Earn money while I sleep, I am never bored, I love the challenge. In short I have the perfect job!
Been doing the same myself for 20 years now and know exactly what you mean. To me, what's happening, is just another move, a step, towards a direction that will make this perfect life of ours unsustainable.
-
Our apologies for any confusion.
Which confusion? It's perfectly clear to me. You should be apologizing for having this "experiment" in the first place!
-
You might find this interesting. I wrote to Big Stock about uploading videos to them this is their reply. I would like to get a part of that 15 cent payout.,
"We are not currently accepting new footage contributors. However, if you have video you would like to submit to be licensed as stock, we would recommend checking out our parent company, Shutterstock. They are always accepting new submission applications for Shutterstock.com."
We thank you for your interest and for being part of the Bigstock family.
Kindest regards,
-
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
Im on bridge also. If mine show up, I will instantly delete them, If I can't I will delete my account, This is Very sad.
-
Our apologies for any confusion.
Which confusion? It's perfectly clear to me. You should be apologizing for having this "experiment" in the first place!
+100
I must also add, the answer from BS is very much anticipated. Surely, before we got the answer, we were all anxious to know, and, we all hoped for a miracle answer that would remove our doubt. Just like when someone cheats on you, you have all the evidence, but you still can not accept the truth, you just need an official answer "Sorry, i cheated on you, and will be doing so again"
-
Yes, I learnt the last days that the way for videos to go to bigstock is via ss, not by direct upload as I was told.
so at the moment I don't have to worry that my files will be affected.
Do those who have files on bigstock know about this new offer? Maybe they were asked and agreed to this experiment?
or perhaps it is their own content? I mean, if it is their own files, they can obviously do whatever they like.
-
None of Mine are there especially good sellers. I wrote them and asked directly whats up. If I get an answer I'll post it. I did write PM's to some of the biggest Video Players alerting them of this. We need more info from whos in charge about there Plans with our content going forward.
-
None of Mine are there especially good sellers. I wrote them and asked directly whats up. If I get an answer I'll post it. I did write PM's to some of the biggest Video Players alerting them of this. We need more info from whos in charge about there Plans with our content going forward.
So is some of the regular SS videos being shuttled on to the BS site, with or without the contributors' knowledge?
-
Big Stock rep said the contributors had opted in
-
Go back to page two of this thread, before the flood of shouting, conspiracies, and anger... "The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. "
People looking for their video, which might be there, are not reading the message from Bigstock.
For the price part, I have nothing to add. It seems absurdly low.
And the comment about P5 investors I'd be afraid of that and how things will change. Didn't P5 promise something about percentages never changing? ??? That will be interesting to watch.
None of Mine are there especially good sellers. I wrote them and asked directly whats up. If I get an answer I'll post it. I did write PM's to some of the biggest Video Players alerting them of this. We need more info from whos in charge about there Plans with our content going forward.
So is some of the regular SS videos being shuttled on to the BS site, with or without the contributors' knowledge?
Really Ron you needed to bump this thread? What? Pages in hours isn;t fast enough for you?
Bump
-
Pete, love ya like a brother man, But Maybe just maybe you got nothing to lose, Some of us do and we are concerned. please let us be concerned. No conspiracy, No BS or theories. I/WE want the facts. Plain and simple and please let us determine whats right for us. OK My Friend.
-
The contributors opt-in with consent, then I can guess that there's secret negotiation between those contributors and BS? content buy out? Don't affect my video, so I don't care. less competition on higher priced video then.. good!
-
A lot of folks read this forum. Maybe some brave BS video contributor will post what kind of deal they got for uploading videos to BS. I am still guessing BS may have just purchased them outright for maybe a year timeframe or so as a test.
-
The contributors opt-in with consent, then I can guess that there's secret negotiation between those contributors and BS? content buy out? Don't affect my video, so I don't care. less competition on higher priced video then.. good!
In my opinion you should care because if they are successful at .15 cent videos it is a game changer for the industry as a whole....meaning whoever you are with now might end up doing the same thing to compete. Like FOTOLIA's CRUMMY DOLLAR PHOTP CLUB, this would be even worse for videographers "IF" the industry response accordingly.
-
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
Im on bridge also. If mine show up, I will instantly delete them, If I can't I will delete my account, This is Very sad.
I am afraid it might be too late. After 90 days of delay as per their new contributor agreement, at that give away prices, everyone in the world would already have a copy of your videos.
-
Ya see, My only issue is For my work. If this takes off it not only de-values the contributers work But....It de-values mine as well. And as we know and has been Proven there are a Whole bunch of people that simply don't care. crowd sourcing at it's finest. But before I get nuts about this, I will wait for someone whos REALLY in charge to fill us in with the real details. Not he said,She said. To me personally...It's another nail in the coffin. I do hope there is nothing to this Now and going forward for If nothing else, The health of our work. Big stock was the first site I joined I think, I worked for and with them a long time. I really Hope theres nothing to this Because it will simply Make everyones work worthless.
We gotta stand up on this one guys But..Lets get the facts correct first.
-
Ya see, My only issue is For my work. If this takes off it not only de-values the contributers work But....It de-values mine as well. And as we know and has been Proven there are a Whole bunch of people that simply don't care. crowd sourcing at it's finest. But before I get nuts about this, I will wait for someone whos REALLY in charge to fill us in with the real details. Not he said,She said. To me personally...It's another nail in the coffin. I do hope there is nothing to this Now and going forward for If nothing else, The health of our work. Big stock was the first site I joined I think, I worked for and with them a long time. I really Hope theres nothing to this Because it will simply Make everyones work worthless.
We gotta stand up on this one guys But..Lets get the facts correct first.
I agree completely with your sentiments. Those who believe that this doesn't affect them are wrong. Those that think this actually helps them are really really wrong.
Sometimes you just don't need to know every detail of a bad situation to know it's a bad situation. A spade is still a spade even if you can only see a small corner of it.
-
So BS is selling video for a lower price than stills... yeah, that's gotta work.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE ??
-
So BS is selling video for a lower price than stills... yeah, that's gotta work.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE ??
Their belief is that some like us may pull our content but we, meaning those who know about the sponging of our assets, are a TINY fraction of the whole. They intend to prey on the un-informed.
-
I hope BS knows if the 15 cent trend continues for a year or so there will be only cell phone video uploaded. Maybe that is BS goal..cell phone videos.
-
I do not support the pricing or the plan at all. I never said one word defending that. (talk about people and putting words in someone else's mouth) My point was as lost as, the comment from BS - you aren't going to find your work from SS on BS for pennies. No one else will either.
"The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. "
That's it. It was with consent. That's what I wrote about, not any other part.
Now please get an old rope so it won't scratch my neck while you are doing the hanging. :)
Pete, love ya like a brother man, But Maybe just maybe you got nothing to lose, Some of us do and we are concerned. please let us be concerned. No conspiracy, No BS or theories. I/WE want the facts. Plain and simple and please let us determine whats right for us. OK My Friend.
-
I do not support the pricing or the plan at all. I never said one word defending that. (talk about people and putting words in someone else's mouth) My point was as lost as, the comment from BS - you aren't going to find your work from SS on BS for pennies. No one else will either.
"The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. "
That's it. It was with consent. That's what I wrote about, not any other part.
Now please get an old rope so it won't scratch my neck while you are doing the hanging. :)
Pete, love ya like a brother man, But Maybe just maybe you got nothing to lose, Some of us do and we are concerned. please let us be concerned. No conspiracy, No BS or theories. I/WE want the facts. Plain and simple and please let us determine whats right for us. OK My Friend.
You are missing the point altogether Uncle Pete, the important talking and action points are NOT inconsequential excerpts from the PR blurbs shutterstock/BS released after making a drastic price point move that is detrimental to the entire industry.
The important talking and action points should be, what are we going to do about shutterstocks negative move. Maybe someone needs to let the Russian community know about this, they seem to be able to organize appropriate responses to predatory moves by the micro market that devalue our assets.
-
Again my question is.. If you were a SS video contributor and let BS have your videos for 15 cents each..What is the backdoor deal.????????????????????????????????? The videos I looked at on BS are very high quality for the most part. They are not homeboy made. Clearly Pro all the way. Got to be a story for the deal cut that BS made to the SS contributors.
-
I used to think you were intelligent. I wrote that people were not going to FIND their images and that SS wasn't porting over there images without permission. Nothing else. But you insist that I'm missing the point and other talking actions.
I say - Tomorrow is Monday and you want to argue that we should be fighting over last Wednesday? And then claiming I'm somehow saying something I never said, about Wednesday? Now who's missing the point?
Go read my first post. It hasn't been edited, it's not about YOUR talking points. It just states a simple fact. People who are in the program were asked in advance and opted in. Try reading this one more time:
"The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. "
Nothing Else!
Get It?
No I don't think it's a good idea. I wouldn't allow my work to be included. The price is too low. But that's not what I wrote.
I do not support the pricing or the plan at all. I never said one word defending that. (talk about people and putting words in someone else's mouth) My point was as lost as, the comment from BS - you aren't going to find your work from SS on BS for pennies. No one else will either.
"The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. "
That's it. It was with consent. That's what I wrote about, not any other part.
Now please get an old rope so it won't scratch my neck while you are doing the hanging. :)
Pete, love ya like a brother man, But Maybe just maybe you got nothing to lose, Some of us do and we are concerned. please let us be concerned. No conspiracy, No BS or theories. I/WE want the facts. Plain and simple and please let us determine whats right for us. OK My Friend.
You are missing the point altogether Uncle Pete, the important talking and action points are NOT inconsequential excerpts from the PR blurbs shutterstock/BS released after making a drastic price point move that is detrimental to the entire industry.
The important talking and action points should be, what are we going to do about shutterstocks negative move. Maybe someone needs to let the Russian community know about this, they seem to be able to organize appropriate responses to predatory moves by the micro market that devalue our assets.
-
Try This for missing the point?
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
Mine don't seem to be there either. I am on the bridge program. That's good unless the video collection is new and Shutterstock intends to move them over.
OMG this is beyond believe! I dont have my account at BS anymore (closed it when the subs came) but i am worried that Shutterstock may just transfer all their videos there. Can they do that? Please Shuttestock confirm to us that this is not happening because otherwise I will have to start deleting my videos from Shutterstock.
Where are they getting the content from? Which video contributor would agree to those prices?
Well that 's the question isn't it. Bigstock belongs to Shutterstock. Anything prevents them from bringing the videos over? And, as the new SS contributor agreement states, our deletions wont take effect until 90 days (?) after ?
If my videos from SS appear there I will certainly cancel my Bigstock account. My 200 videos on Shutterstock earn me several times more monthly than my 7500 images on BS, so it wont be much of a loss.
I really don't understand this. Return per download for videos on Shutterstock is growing nicely, and volume of sales too. Sometimes I get video commissions like 80-150 USD...
i contacted support to kill all my files at bigstock. This guys.. >:(
Checked, and my videos are not there.
We should find out where do they get the content from. And do the content owners know about this?
If my videos get pipelined over to Bigstock with those prices I will have no choice but to pull them from SS. That leaves only p5 who makes me any money, forcing me to reconsider video exclusivity with Istock.
Right here in time, BigStock answers that it's by an Opt-In contract and those contributors agreed in advance
We need urgent explanation from SS! ASAP
...
But to opt in all files is very strange. they know that the contributors did not upload their content for this price model.
I was just talking about Bigstock with a friend yesterday, wondering if uploading videos to Bigstock was a good idea.
Mostly I worry about agencies taking in content under one business model, then abruptly changing that business model without giving us an opt out, the way fotolia did with DPC.
If this moves forward will the bridge program FORCE IN OUR VIDEOS or will we be able to opt out? It is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that we have an opt out from this scheme to erode video to worse than photos.
I get $19 for a video on SS, I need to sell that same video 127 times now on BS to make the same.
if ever there was a time to pull all of your work to send a very clear message that this is not acceptable, this is it. it's crap or get of the pot time.
That is ridiculous. I wonder if the "bridge to bigstock" conveys videos there. (Edit - Mine don't seem to be there)
Im on bridge also. If mine show up, I will instantly delete them, If I can't I will delete my account, This is Very sad.
Yes, I learnt the last days that the way for videos to go to bigstock is via ss, not by direct upload as I was told.
so at the moment I don't have to worry that my files will be affected.
Do those who have files on bigstock know about this new offer? Maybe they were asked and agreed to this experiment?
or perhaps it is their own content? I mean, if it is their own files, they can obviously do whatever they like.
None of Mine are there especially good sellers. I wrote them and asked directly whats up. If I get an answer I'll post it. I did write PM's to some of the biggest Video Players alerting them of this. We need more info from whos in charge about there Plans with our content going forward.
So is some of the regular SS videos being shuttled on to the BS site, with or without the contributors' knowledge?
Second person explains the same again.
Big Stock rep said the contributors had opted in
But I'm missing the point. By quoted what BigStock wrote two pages before?
"The contributors who are participating have all opted-in and all of the content is being appropriately licensed with their consent. "
-
Pete I refuse to waste digital space or energy talking about PR blurbs from shutterstock. I will spend my time contacting the video contributors I know who will be impacted by this predatory business move to squeeze contributors.
A company can increase its Gross Margin in two ways. It can increase the prices of the goods it sells and keeps its Cost of Goods Sold unchanged. Or it can keep the sales price unchanged and squeeze its suppliers to reduce the Cost of Goods Sold.
We all know which option shutterstock consistently chooses and with this move they just dropped to a new low.
-
I was writing about something else and actually answering questions that were posted on the forum. Where did the images come from and did the people know?
You can go have your fun contacting people, make sure you contact the people who opted in and were asked to join the program, because that's where all of it came from. They will want to know how you feel about their personal decisions.
Pete I refuse to waste digital space or energy talking about PR blurbs from shutterstock. I will spend my time contacting the video contributors I know who will be impacted by this predatory business move to squeeze contributors.
A company can increase its Gross Margin in two ways. It can increase the prices of the goods it sells and keeps its Cost of Goods Sold unchanged. Or it can keep the sales price unchanged and squeeze its suppliers to reduce the Cost of Goods Sold.
We all know which option shutterstock consistently chooses and with this move they just dropped to a new low.
-
Sigh
Most of us are well aware of this point Pete, we could read it in the PR blurb shutterstock posted in this thread the first time and we are well aware that they made a closed doors deal with those contributor who are included in this roll out.
However most video contributors do not know about it, and I am very sure they will not be at all happy with this new deal and price structure that significantly devalues their content.
You did and do miss the point, it does not matter if those folks opted in and are okay with this deal; the majority of contributors will not be pleased with this new pricing as it is financially detrimental to the entire industry.
-
Well for people who are well aware, after the announcement why did about eight of them ask if they would find if their video was on BS from SS there and asked where did the images come from?
Asked and answered, for other people. But you insist I'm writing to you?
Sigh
Most of us are well aware of this point Pete, we could read it in the PR blurb shutterstock posted in this thread the first time and we are well aware that they made a closed doors deal with those contributor who are included in this roll out.
However most video contributors do not know about it, and I am very sure they will not be at all happy with this new deal and price structure that significantly devalues their content.
You did and do miss the point, it does not matter if those folks opted in and are okay with this deal; the majority of contributors will not be pleased with this new pricing as it is financially detrimental to the entire industry.
-
I'm a video contributor and I sent a site mail to Shutterstock. Here is the text:
"Good morning sirs.
I cannot find if I opted in for selling footage on other sites, connected with
agreements or ownership with Shutterstock.
For exemple Big Stock.
You know there are some discussions about the last commercial proposals of that
agency in term of footage. I don't succed in finding information about it. I would like to avoid that my footage would be sold at really really little prices. Can
you help me telling me if a risk that situation or if I have to opt out some
condition of our agreement? "
Here is the answer:
"Dear Luca,
Thank you for your email. Please know that the footage clips you submit to Shutterstock is only licensed through Shutterstock. You footage clips will not be licensed through Bigstock without your permission. We hope this clarifies the issue for you.
Kind Regards,
Shutterstock Compliance"
-
A
-
I received that answer and my footage is not on BigStock.
I opted in for subscription in SS, and I always get around 20 dollars per download.
For the moment I feel ok with the answer and the evidence of my position.
I wrote a site mail becouse I didn't want to partecipate in any way to the BigStock affair.
I decided also to not upload to dissolve becouse of there policy of the 5 dollars footage.
Until the sites provide around 20 dollars for download I can stand it otherwise it's simply not worthy
-
An email from SS seems to contradict that reply from their customer service
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-sends-mass-mail-with-open-adresslist[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-sends-mass-mail-with-open-adresslist[/url])
In what way does that email contradict that our clips will not be licensed through BS without our permission? That email was referring only to opting in to SS subscriptions; it has nothing to do with BS sales.
However, while it is good that our clips won't be sold on BS without our permission, the fact that SS is selling clips on BS for such ridiculously low prices is what really matters.
-
An email from SS seems to contradict that reply from their customer service
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-sends-mass-mail-with-open-adresslist[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-sends-mass-mail-with-open-adresslist[/url])
In what way does that email contradict that our clips will not be licensed through BS without our permission? That email was referring only to opting in to SS subscriptions; it has nothing to do with BS sales.
However, while it is good that our clips won't be sold on BS without our permission, the fact that SS is selling clips on BS for such ridiculously low prices is what really matters.
Completely agree, we should be very concerned by the fact that BS is devaluing video pricing for the entire market by selling clips at an ultra ultra low price point.
-
It has to do with the fact that SS owns BS, SS says they dont sell video through subscription but they are now reaching out to buyers to ask them if they want to get a video subscription on SS. Unless I missed something.
-
It has to do with the fact that SS owns BS, SS says they dont sell video through subscription but they are now reaching out to buyers to ask them if they want to get a video subscription on SS. Unless I missed something.
:o :o
Most of my SS video sales (> 50%, certainly) are and always have been through subscription. Where did you get the idea they say they don't sell video through subscriptions?
-
It has to do with the fact that SS owns BS, SS says they dont sell video through subscription but they are now reaching out to buyers to ask them if they want to get a video subscription on SS. Unless I missed something.
:o :o
Most of my SS video sales (> 50%, certainly) are and always have been through subscription. Where did you get the idea they say they don't sell video through subscriptions?
I think they meant subscriptions of the 15 cent kind. ;)
-
Ok guys, I had it wrong, in the heat of the moment I jumped the gun
-
Ok guys, I had it wrong, in the heat of the moment I jumped the gun
Maybe you did, maybe you didn't.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143339 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143339)
-
I haven't read the whole thread, but this scheme is just too stupid to continue over a long period of time. Maybe the collection size will be limited or the program will be terminated.
So far, this kind of stunts was pulled off by loser sites, such as Fotolia or Istock. SS is one of 2 leaders in the footage market.
Let's assume SS has 30%-40% share of the market. Let's assume they are successful with this stupid move, kill most of their competition and increase their share to 90% (which is unrealistic because many producers would pull their content). A growth from 30% to 90% market share would mean a threefold increase. Now, could this unlikely growth compensate for a decrease in price from up to $79 per HD clip to $0.15? If you know the exact royalty rates for footage, please deduct them and do the maths, I'm too tired right now. How many times less is it?
Does 0.15 even cover the bandwidth, reviewing and storage costs?
I agree that this scheme is stupid but at the moment I'm not panicking.
I think more dangerous to the footage market are idiots who charge $50 for top quality HD and $90 for 4K on Pond5, and those who upload clips to DT, Envato and other gangster sites.
-
Finally a thread about this on SS.Join in.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2780817#2780817 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2780817#2780817)
-
Finally a thread about this on SS.Join in.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2780817#2780817[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2780817#2780817[/url])
Cannot get in. When I was banned I still had viewing privileges, but just wasn't allowed to post. Anthony said the ban shouldn't be that long but now, years later, they yanked even my viewing privileges, for what reason I don't know. I can promise SS one thing. If I got my privileges back I would never post there, but I would read threads like you attached.
Oh well.
-
Just log out and read it
-
Just log out and read it
Well that was flipping easy, thanks.
-
No problem, they cant ban you when you are not logged in, unless they start working with IP bans etc
-
OK Guys!
Let me see... Is there any lawyers? Can someone look at the laws and tell us that we agreed to not have our voice heard when price of OUR work is tagged to sell them on agencies? Not even when they are cutting the price 10 folds on lowest competitor price? If there is ANY lawyer who can fight those corporate sharks who are always trying to earn with "managing" where that is just filling their own pockets and emptying ours? They are just sharks who found us as their prey.
Our unfortunate position with not having any power to say NO and to give them legal court order is tragedy!
If this can not get on the court and hit their pockets then this industry is over! No chance you can produce and sell videos for silly 15 cents!
Well guys - Stock alliance? Any organization? Anyone? Is there any help on this subject?
[EDIT] Just to add: Jon fcked it up when gone public! The same as Geza did when sold stockxpert to sharks... We need really INDEPENDENT agency!
-
Just upload to Pond5 and don't bother with the other sites. They seem to have the most buyers and let us choose our own prices. I think its almost impossible for BigStock to get many video buyers now, they are too late, like all the sites that fail to get a slice of the stills market.
-
Just upload to Pond5 and don't bother with the other sites. They seem to have the most buyers and let us choose our own prices. I think its almost impossible for BigStock to get many video buyers now, they are too late, like all the sites that fail to get a slice of the stills market.
BigStock desperat move. Anybody know how much did they paid these people to sell out and cut our throats? Stay with Pond5 and drop the rest.
-
Just upload to Pond5 and don't bother with the other sites. They seem to have the most buyers and let us choose our own prices. I think its almost impossible for BigStock to get many video buyers now, they are too late, like all the sites that fail to get a slice of the stills market.
BigStock desperat move. Anybody know how much did they paid these people to sell out and cut our throats? Stay with Pond5 and drop the rest.
I agree with you. I still, however, get decent money from SS on videos. Not sure how long this will last now that BS is trying to crush the video market into worthless product.
-
I just sold a clip with SS and received $3.60. In my opinion, Pond5 is the only agency out there that isn't trying to crush the video market into a worthless product.
-
At what time should video makers become worried about Bigstock Footage? Or is there nothing to fear, for you'd have to assume SS know what they are doing. The BS footage collection now sits at 66,000+ up from 30,000 a couple of months ago.
-
I know people love to flame iStock but for video now I am averaging $50.00 as an exclusive and with Getty even more! I feel the pricing is very fair for video artist there and am happy to support that direction.
-
I know people love to flame iStock but for video now I am averaging $50.00 as an exclusive and with Getty even more! I feel the pricing is very fair for video artist there and am happy to support that direction.
I think for exclusives that's a fair enough deal, especially as you're getting 35% or so (I imagine) of what they are.
For an independent like me, 15% (earning around $7 for an HD sale) was simply ridiculous and definitely not something I could support.
-
If istock offered exclusive videos/series the way getty does, they would probably get quite a bit of interesting content, especially localized content that doesn´t sell in high volume.
But to be fully exclusive when the market for video is just starting out? I mean if they were dominating the video marketplace it would be different...
However I am sure it works for some people so i am glad to hear that there are video exclusives that are happy.
-
At what time should video makers become worried about Bigstock Footage? Or is there nothing to fear, for you'd have to assume SS know what they are doing. The BS footage collection now sits at 66,000+ up from 30,000 a couple of months ago.
And now they are officially advertising their video collection, just got an email.
I dont understand the lack of reaction to this ridiculous scheme, people must have too much trust in SS?
-
From what I understand all content was opted in voluntarily. It´s not like DPC where our content was placed in a new project without asking us.
Obviously an artist can do with their content whatever they want.
-
True, but this is the one scheme that will compete with our sale elsewhere. People make a big deal about the public domain collection from Pond5, which does NOT compete with our sale, but are OK with this one !!!???
-
I wouldn´t add my content to this, but we don´t know what deal was offered to those who opted in. Maybe they got a huge amount of cash upfront, who knows?
When this becomes the official strategy of bigstock and all content is offered for 15 cents and without giving people an opt out, then I think you will see a very large backlash.
But until then, I think it is difficult to protest. People also offers videos for free in some places.
So far shutterstock has been good at avoiding scandals. I hope they will handle their experiment in a responsible way.
ETA: I understand your point about competing with our sales elsewhere, including sales on SS. It´s not like I am not worried. But as others have pointed out, they have 66000 files, not 3 million.
-
RIDICOULOUS !
-
I can not understand why anyone would contribute their clips to this venture. Someone doing so is pretty much killing off any future sales of those clips (and similars) elsewhere, as well as telling buyers that that is all their clips are worth (very little). :o And, of course, lowering the perceived value of stock footage in general. >:(
-
88,000 and growing fast. Who are the a######e's who provided their clips for this service?
-
Shutterstock has offer directly to those selected contributing artist/creator, this is optional, their can reject it or accept the offer. Obviously those content owners in Shutterstock's Bigstock footage collection has accept the offer. What ever the offer is their has decided on their right mind that the offer is 'reasonable'.
I think this is an "OK" business practice by Shutterstock, unlike other major agencies.
From my experience, Shutterstock is capable to bring in big sales, their are good at creatively manipulating offers and packages to buyer for example I ever get $100+ for a HD clip under most 'hated' subscription model, how their do it? so far none other agency able to do this.
The idea with Bigstock plan for me is to accelerate buyer base for footage market.