pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: If shutterstock introduces exclusivity  (Read 9849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2014, 02:12 »
+7
I thought my grudge towards Getty is bad, yours towards SS seems to run much deeper.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 09:01 by onepointfour »


« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2014, 03:50 »
+13
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2014, 04:12 »
+1
If Shutterstock introduces Exclusivity everyone who doesn't go exclusive had better get ready to take a paycut to a flat 25c for sub sales. They wont be offering a carrot without offsetting the costs.

« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2014, 09:06 »
+6
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2014, 09:49 »
+7
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

They could always try just giving exclusives a t-shirt and an autographed picture of Jon and see if they accept that.  ;)

« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2014, 09:54 »
-3
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 10:51 by gbalex »

Valo

« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2014, 10:03 »
+2
I don not think Shutterstock has done anything in the past to earn mistrust of image producers. They have not (yet maybe) pulled stunts in the magnitude of Istock, Getty, Fotolia, Deposit Photos, etc. I think at this point it is a case of not guilty until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt (if there is any doubt), etc. etc.

« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2014, 10:31 »
+4
I don not think Shutterstock has done anything in the past to earn mistrust of image producers. They have not (yet maybe) pulled stunts in the magnitude of Istock, Getty, Fotolia, Deposit Photos, etc. I think at this point it is a case of not guilty until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt (if there is any doubt), etc. etc.

I guess it depends on whether you were making money off the partner program or thought BigStock was better before they bought them. Not that those things can't be said about other agencies too, but I don't think anybody really gets a pass.

Valo

« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2014, 10:50 »
+1
Sure, I attempted to put in a balanced comment, everyone has their own opinions. It was just a thought, no biggie.

« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2014, 10:54 »
+2
Sure, I attempted to put in a balanced comment, everyone has their own opinions. It was just a thought, no biggie.

I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2014, 19:33 »
-2
I would also cthoman. Where is that Rob? Understand I wouldn't even try for Offset or Stocksy, what I shoot doesn't fit. That doesn't mean anything against those two, which seem to have an interesting idea and direction.

If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

If more of those places existed, I'd totally do that.

Here's something, maybe SS doesn't want to become something different? Maybe they aren't interested in going the way Yuri wanted. And by the way, no one else listened either. But the weight falls again on two names. Oddly the top two?  :) Do all the rest get a free pass or something?

Saying what if SS goes exclusive is like saying, what if I discover gold in my back yard. Highly unlikely. Then the speculation and some criticism, including how it would be wrong to favor exclusive in searches, or some flawed part of something that doesn't exist, is quite odd?

Meanwhile Gbalex I was mostly commenting on the repeating, redundant, repetitious, extended financial quotes, as if they actually have something connected to "SS offering exclusive" or most of the other threads. Not saying it's not interesting or there's anything untrue in them, just that we've read it and seen it. Then you areapplying the same argument every time the name Microstcok and SS comes up, isn't building facts or data.

After so many slices of onion, you have obscured the flavor, point and purpose and all that's left is the taste of bitterness and tears. I don't really think that SS is terribly interested in our opinions, on the, right way they should run their business. Seems they've don't fairly well with the status quo?

The investors are interested in cash flow and recovery of their investment and then making profits. What would you do if you owned the company or had invested millions into Shutterstock?

I find nothing in your long discovery and financial exposure, unusual or out of line for a successful business.

However:

...

To recap... New sites treat contributors great. Sites start doing well and begin doing bad things to contributors. The more power and leverage the site has the more bad things they do. And if company finances start hurting, bring on the pain.


Pete, if you don't shoot that kind of work, then why worry about it? Offset, Stocksy, Getty, I guess are your only real choices other than selling it yourself. None of those would take my stuff either. Although I think all three sites have some images that aren't as good as some of mine.

If Yuri had succeeded in pushing Shutterstock into midstock, where would that have left the rest of us?

Fact is, Shutterstock just keeps going steady. Almost every step they take increases income. I think the only thing they screwed us on was Bigstock subs, and that's really only some of us who weren't on Bridge.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 19:37 by robhainer »

« Reply #61 on: July 03, 2014, 19:35 »
+4
I'm also guessing Yuri wanted special treatment and SS wouldn't give him what he wanted.

« Reply #62 on: July 03, 2014, 20:03 »
+1
I'm also guessing Yuri wanted special treatment and SS wouldn't give him what he wanted.

I assume it was for him and not us, but I guess if you get your foot in the door others might be able to sneak through too.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #63 on: July 04, 2014, 23:46 »
+4
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

Who Cares if you post the Insight information another 1000 times. I don't own Insight Capitol? The search appears to have been changed, before Insight, according to some people. And another "So What" do you run SS and Insight, and why are you so concerned with their financial business.

What's important to me and I'll guess, most of the rest of us, is OUR business and income.

(you wrote to someone else:) I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

I'd agree with that completely.

I just don't know why you have an antagonist perspective on pretty much everything SS, but that's your right. I'm just tired of reading the same data, which I feel is fairly irrelevant to our situation as artists?

I thought you said you had background in some Fortune 500 company? Granting investors, officers, and some others shares as dividends is SOP. It's not like they are doing something out of the ordinary? Do you know the details of the contract with SS where Insight gave them the money to expand. I mean the details of the agreement, percentages and repayment terms?

« Reply #64 on: July 05, 2014, 05:51 »
+2
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

Who Cares if you post the Insight information another 1000 times. I don't own Insight Capitol? The search appears to have been changed, before Insight, according to some people. And another "So What" do you run SS and Insight, and why are you so concerned with their financial business.

What's important to me and I'll guess, most of the rest of us, is OUR business and income.

(you wrote to someone else:) I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

I'd agree with that completely.

I just don't know why you have an antagonist perspective on pretty much everything SS, but that's your right. I'm just tired of reading the same data, which I feel is fairly irrelevant to our situation as artists?

I thought you said you had background in some Fortune 500 company? Granting investors, officers, and some others shares as dividends is SOP. It's not like they are doing something out of the ordinary? Do you know the details of the contract with SS where Insight gave them the money to expand. I mean the details of the agreement, percentages and repayment terms?

I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.

« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2014, 09:12 »
0
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

True. By upping commissions to exclusives (if that ever happened) there would have to be an answer for shareholders regarding the additional costs.  If, say, exclusivity costs SS another $250,000 a year, a shareholder would ask what's in it for me? You just pulled xx basis points off the gross margin.  There would have to be a clear, measurable return if they offered exclusivity.  In my mind the right kind of contributors must be wooed to go exclusive. In other words, maybe exclusivity is by invitation only, which would filter out basic portfolios where SS would not gain a market edge by allowing them to go exclusive.  So, let's take Sandralaise as an example.  She has a wonderful, powerful port.  That is the kind of target they might go after, as opposed to someone who snaps basic travel shots or tomatoes on white. Simply no advantage to them on the latter. This is to say that I don't think exclusivity in terms of the contributor making the decision is in the realm of possibility. More along the lines of applying for exclusivity, having your port reviewed for uniqueness, possibly sharing revenue numbers with SS, and then a pragmatic decision could be made.  This, in my mind, would FORCE losing agencies to up their commission game as they would be losing significant revenue from the likes of the sandralaises.

 

« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2014, 11:23 »
0
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

True. By upping commissions to exclusives (if that ever happened) there would have to be an answer for shareholders regarding the additional costs.  If, say, exclusivity costs SS another $250,000 a year, a shareholder would ask what's in it for me? You just pulled xx basis points off the gross margin.  There would have to be a clear, measurable return if they offered exclusivity.  In my mind the right kind of contributors must be wooed to go exclusive. In other words, maybe exclusivity is by invitation only, which would filter out basic portfolios where SS would not gain a market edge by allowing them to go exclusive.  So, let's take Sandralaise as an example.  She has a wonderful, powerful port.  That is the kind of target they might go after, as opposed to someone who snaps basic travel shots or tomatoes on white. Simply no advantage to them on the latter. This is to say that I don't think exclusivity in terms of the contributor making the decision is in the realm of possibility. More along the lines of applying for exclusivity, having your port reviewed for uniqueness, possibly sharing revenue numbers with SS, and then a pragmatic decision could be made.  This, in my mind, would FORCE losing agencies to up their commission game as they would be losing significant revenue from the likes of the sandralaises.

Yes Sandra has a powerful port and yet not one of her images was included in the Offset collection.

Stocksy was smart to include her work, which better than many images in the Offset collection.


« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2014, 12:50 »
+5
Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

If that's the reason, why not just post a link to the original post with the financial data? It seems that would solve the problem and reduce the amount of flak that you take for re-posting the same information.

« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2014, 13:32 »
+1
I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.

I'm sure I've made this point before, but it seems like everyone has the right to protect their turf. SS works really well for some, and it may actually be the best model for them. I wish that wasn't the case because I know it isn't the best thing for me, but I can't fault them for defending that.

That said, my hope is and continues to be that more agencies realize that they can exist outside that influence and focus on the contributors that actually want something closer to the mythical midstock.

« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2014, 16:01 »
0
I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.


I'm sure I've made this point before, but it seems like everyone has the right to protect their turf. SS works really well for some, and it may actually be the best model for them. I wish that wasn't the case because I know it isn't the best thing for me, but I can't fault them for defending that.

That said, my hope is and continues to be that more agencies realize that they can exist outside that influence and focus on the contributors that actually want something closer to the mythical midstock.


Agreed, thou there was a time when shutterstock's model was kinder to all of us. You know things have turned south, when even those who rely on the micro model to bring in paying customers for workshops; start to complain that the model is broken. http://tinyurl.com/kpcmfjy

And even ardent shutterstock ambassadors have changed their tune. http://tinyurl.com/qc6x25v

Uncle Pete

« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2014, 21:41 »
0
Yup, Yup, Yup, whatever! You want to tell SS how to run their business and they aren't listening to you. Now you claim I'm arguing against a raise?

Pure greed is what got us to this point. Like people taking 20c an Upload feeding some new beast. Or people uploading to every new site that comes along. Competing with themselves on PRICE! While diluting any established business as we race to the bottom and destroy the hopes of anything that resembles a business instead of work at home scheme or MLM.

Look the agencies now have 20 million and up images. What do they need? Why would they pay more to us, when people are begging to get accepted and work for nothing? Try that, instead of the same old tune.



The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

Who Cares if you post the Insight information another 1000 times. I don't own Insight Capitol? The search appears to have been changed, before Insight, according to some people. And another "So What" do you run SS and Insight, and why are you so concerned with their financial business.

What's important to me and I'll guess, most of the rest of us, is OUR business and income.

(you wrote to someone else:) I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

I'd agree with that completely.

I just don't know why you have an antagonist perspective on pretty much everything SS, but that's your right. I'm just tired of reading the same data, which I feel is fairly irrelevant to our situation as artists?

I thought you said you had background in some Fortune 500 company? Granting investors, officers, and some others shares as dividends is SOP. It's not like they are doing something out of the ordinary? Do you know the details of the contract with SS where Insight gave them the money to expand. I mean the details of the agreement, percentages and repayment terms?

I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.

« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2014, 23:12 »
+1
You must be bored Pete

Uncle Pete

« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2014, 23:29 »
0
No doubt you are correct on that point, as well as some others.  :) Shot last Winter, dashcam on my visor. If you could hear the audio, it's someone laughing while making endless circles in the roundabout. But it does seem appropriate for a circular argument that blames one agency and not the entire industry as it stands at this point.

Just finished a 13 hour day at work, and I'm looking forward to the same again on Sunday. Never a shortage of fun around here. I also shot fireworks and time-lapse last night after a shorter 9 1/2 hour day. Sleep is a waste of time...  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXAo5ts0Tc


You must be bored Pete

« Reply #73 on: July 06, 2014, 00:36 »
-3
No doubt you are correct on that point, as well as some others.  :) Shot last Winter, dashcam on my visor. If you could hear the audio, it's someone laughing while making endless circles in the roundabout. But it does seem appropriate for a circular argument that blames one agency and not the entire industry as it stands at this point.

Just finished a 13 hour day at work, and I'm looking forward to the same again on Sunday. Never a shortage of fun around here. I also shot fireworks and time-lapse last night after a shorter 9 1/2 hour day. Sleep is a waste of time...  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXAo5ts0Tc


You must be bored Pete

Angry, bored and still attempting to stir up trouble.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
44 Replies
9335 Views
Last post August 11, 2011, 08:31
by briciola
27 Replies
4743 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 05:00
by RacePhoto
12 Replies
5657 Views
Last post December 11, 2011, 06:45
by Paulo M. F. Pires
5 Replies
2127 Views
Last post May 22, 2014, 20:31
by onepointfour
33 Replies
11277 Views
Last post May 13, 2017, 02:36
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results