They don't keep changing the rules to try to squeeze more out of buyers or contributors. You know where you stand.

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.

by selling millions of images for pennies on the dollar and undercutting.

....and they know how to market them selves.

They are honest (as it is possible)
They are reliable (as it is possible)
For these reasons they are renowned.

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

No P+, C-, Vendetta Collections.

good one

because you actually see sales occurring (hourly) 

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.

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.

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.