pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why is Shutter Stock so successful.  (Read 4726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 27, 2013, 17:50 »
0
Why is Shutter Stock so Successful?  They have the same, or similar images as everyone else.  Their rates are low, but not the lowest ( I don't think)

What do they do to bring in and keep image buyers happy?

Their search Engine?

Their marketing?



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2013, 17:51 »
+14
Maybe it's not so much what they're doing right, as what the opposition is doing wrong.

« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2013, 17:57 »
+1
They are easy to contribute to and for the most part they don't PO the average contributor or buyer which spills over as good will for the business. "Goodwill is an accounting concept meaning the value of an asset owned that is intangible but has a quantifiable "prudent value" in a business, such as a reputation the firm enjoys with its clients."

« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2013, 19:08 »
+4
They don't keep changing the rules to try to squeeze more out of buyers or contributors. You know where you stand.

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2013, 19:23 »
+2
Shutterstock sell a good for a price.
There is no crap.

They are reliable, both for customers and contributors.

EmberMike

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2013, 20:17 »
+4
They don't keep changing the rules to try to squeeze more out of buyers or contributors. You know where you stand.

I think this is pretty much it. Especially as it relates to buyers. Shutterstock hasn't messed with things too much over the years. They introduced some new purchasing products like On Demand, Single On Demand, etc. But mostly things have stayed the same there, especially for subscription buyers. Consistency is a wonderful thing, and buyers appreciate it. They don't want to wonder what they'll be up against or what they'll pay for an image every time they log in.

Keeping it simple works. Few other companies know well enough to do it, always trying to find some new product or some new way to make a few extra bucks and ruining something good in the process.

« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2013, 20:22 »
+6
best search in the industry

shudderstok

« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2013, 21:08 »
+3
by selling millions of images for pennies on the dollar and undercutting.

« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2013, 22:08 »
+2
It is kind of amazing. SS has shown that the demand for images is huge. It's hard to believe so much gets downloaded. I wish it was all a little more profitable for me, but it is still very impressive the volume of files downloaded.

« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2013, 22:25 »
0
....and they know how to market them selves.

« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2013, 22:52 »
+1
I agree with many of the posts above, and I would add:
-They treat all of their contributors equally
-When something goes wrong, they admit it, tell the truth about the cause, and fix it
These things can also be said about some of the other good sites, no doubt. But they cannot be said of that site which used to be number one and now looks to be in the process of completing its self destruction.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2013, 01:19 »
+2
They are honest (as it is possible)
They are reliable (as it is possible)
For these reasons they are renowned.

Tror

« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2013, 03:01 »
+2
1. They had been one of the first Microstockers. Soon enough to reserve and maintain their fair share of the market.
2. No crap. Simple and reliable.
3. Good prices.
4. Easy to upload > loads of new material for clients from the beginning on.

« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2013, 03:30 »
+1
Jon is bit of a mathematician, analitical mind. I have a close firend like that also working at a really large web corp, serious math guy, they are the people you need if you want to run a large system optimally. Jon figured out neat price / volume numbers for the packages buliding on the 'average customer behaviour', mostly the minor shortcomings of human nature: forgetfulness, poor judgment on how much resources they really need and likely need, how attracted they are to package numbers that sound like a bargain but they never actually use it up, how you can more easily get people to pay a lot if the business runs in small incements (most people simply can't count)... etcetc

« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2013, 03:34 »
+8
No P+, C-, Vendetta Collections.

shudderstok

« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2013, 03:37 »
0
No P+, C-, Vendetta Collections.

good one

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2013, 09:10 »
+5
Well, let's not forget that Shutterstock changed the referral reward rules by limiting the duration to 2 years maximum. It seems to me, that if they need to, they could just as easily squeeze money out of their contributors as any other agency.

Despite that issue, they treat contributor's pretty well. Also, their subscription model works pretty good, giving buyers an incentive to buy, even if they don't need the image directly. You get rewarded on a basis of lifetime earnings (more earnings = higher RPD) instead of a lame 12-month RC-system like iStock and 123RF.

A pay raise would be good, though.

tab62

« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2013, 09:14 »
+4
because you actually see sales occurring (hourly)  ;)



WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2013, 09:28 »
0
because you actually see sales occurring (hourly)  ;)

Me Too.   ;D

« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2013, 10:19 »
+1
Jon is bit of a mathematician, analitical mind. I have a close firend like that also working at a really large web corp, serious math guy, they are the people you need if you want to run a large system optimally. Jon figured out neat price / volume numbers for the packages buliding on the 'average customer behaviour', mostly the minor shortcomings of human nature: forgetfulness, poor judgment on how much resources they really need and likely need, how attracted they are to package numbers that sound like a bargain but they never actually use it up, how you can more easily get people to pay a lot if the business runs in small incements (most people simply can't count)... etcetc

Good points, Jon also initially built the site himself and kept it simple to avoid high overhead costs.  Until recently he did not tinker with the search leaving it up to the buyer to uncover good content.  Until recently producing good content was rewarded because of a buyer driven merit search. Now I strongly suspect they are using the search to shift more sales to new contributors.

Ditto the bold for contributors who also do not keep track of how much they spend to contribute content to the site.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 10:25 by gbalex »

« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2013, 12:35 »
+2
Because they know where they are going and make good decisions based on what's good for business - also the guy with the vision hasn't given the company over to the bean counters yet.

Ron

« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2013, 15:04 »
0
Just to balance things out, they did cut the referral rates and they do have poor images. I.E. The older images are not up to par, and there is a portfolio,  that has so many poor images, it almost looks as if their has been no reviews at all.

I am not having a go at Shutterstock as they do good for me, just adding some balance.

« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2013, 15:19 »
+5
This thread is extraordinary. It is a pure idiot's guide to how to do it right.

Now, if only the other agencies start paying attention to the incredible information here, SS could find itself facing some real competition.

Stop being sneaky, underhand, variable and "clever" and start being fair, honest, stable and sincere and maybe you, too, could have a successful stock site.

EmberMike

« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2013, 15:20 »
+2
Well, let's not forget that Shutterstock changed the referral reward rules by limiting the duration to 2 years maximum. It seems to me, that if they need to, they could just as easily squeeze money out of their contributors as any other agency...

I hate that they killed off the previous referral deal, I really do. It cost me a lot of money.

But, that said, until they changed the deal they had one of the best referral programs going. Most other places just gave us a one-time fee, usually just a few bucks. The SS referral program earned me nearly $10,000 before it was changed. I think it was the only one worth participating in, and they ran it until it just wasn't needed anymore. There is no shortage of contributors these days, so in a way it makes sense to end referral programs.

I wish SS would have honored the original deal and kept existing referrals active after 2 years. But aside from that, they did run the best program in the business, while it lasted.

« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2013, 16:10 »
0
It seems idiots don't read guides!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4898 Views
Last post March 26, 2020, 10:42
by Hoodie Ninja
3 Replies
2163 Views
Last post March 25, 2008, 06:12
by DiscreetDuck
10 Replies
3294 Views
Last post February 03, 2013, 08:59
by ruzgar344
5 Replies
2275 Views
Last post December 04, 2013, 19:55
by gostwyck
9 Replies
2703 Views
Last post June 04, 2015, 10:24
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle