Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24833 times)

Ron · « **Reply #25 on:** January 21, 2014, 11:29 »

I am not going to debate with you.

If you search 'blogging in decline' you get your answers, if I search 'blogging on the rise' I get my answers.

Agree to disagree seems to work best for me when talking to you. I am done endlessly defending every word I type here. Sorry, but I need to keep my sanity.

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** January 21, 2014, 12:15 »

Quote from: bunhill on January 21, 2014, 11:12

Incidentally - I have the impression that many/most of the big pro blogs are using mostly free PR content.

Not only the big blogs - there are lots of sources of free and legal images (mostly like you say PR) of many of the things people like to blog about - travel destinations, celebs, politicians, fashion, technology ...

Copidosoma · « **Reply #27 on:** January 21, 2014, 12:29 »

Here is how Istock values my images:

Date (DD/MM/YYYY)      Size    License    Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large   Regular   $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT     Large   Regular   $3.12 USD

'nuff said

gbalex · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2014, 12:56 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on January 21, 2014, 12:29

Here is how Istock values my images:

Date (DD/MM/YYYY)      Size    License    Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large   Regular   $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT     Large   Regular   $3.12 USD

'nuff said

It is called the SS effect, it was easy for IS to see who was gaining market share and they dropped prices in an attempt to plug the dam.

SS has no problem at all devaluing out assets to gain market share! As long at we believe the conditioned fallacy that we can do nothing to stop them, the micros will take advantage of our learned helplessness.

Instead of spreading the misinformation that we can do nothing about this inequity, it is time that we step up to the plate and demand fair compensation for our time, talent and resources.

We do have power we just have to take it back, if IS did not feel threatened by the contributor response of deleting images, they would not have removed Sean's portfolio. I removed my port from IS after that response and more people are doing it every day. They bought Yuri's and Andres ports but we all know the margins are slim and if they continue to lose quality contributors and ports one day they will find they will not be able to compete in the market or buy higher end contributors to fill the missing niches.

I think the trend has already started, I know more high end contributors who are shooting for macro sites, while leaving their sub par images for the micro sites. As this trend accelerates quality will drop on the micros and customers will migrate to sites with quality images. I know my own buying patterns are changing.

Ron · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:06 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 21, 2014, 12:56

Quote from: Copidosoma on January 21, 2014, 12:29
Here is how Istock values my images:

Date (DD/MM/YYYY)      Size    License    Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large   Regular   $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT     Large   Regular   $3.12 USD

'nuff said

It is called the SS effect, it was easy for IS to see who was gaining market share and they dropped prices in an attempt to plug the dam.

SS has no problem at all devaluing out assets to gain market share! As long at we believe the conditioned fallacy that we can do nothing to stop them, the micros will take advantage of our learned helplessness.

Instead of spreading the misinformation that we can do nothing about this inequity, it is time that we step up to the plate and demand fair compensation for out time, talent and resources.

We do have power we just have to take it back, if IS did not feel threatened by the contributor response of deleting images, they would not have removed Sean's portfolio. I removed my port from IS after that response and more people are doing it every day. They bought Yuri's and Andres ports but we all know the margins are slim and if they continue to lose quality contributors and ports one day they will find they will not be able to compete in the market or buy higher end contributors to fill the missing niches.

I think the trend has already started, I know more high end contributors who are shooting for macro sites, while leaving their sub par images for the micro sites. As this trend accelerates quality will drop on the micros and customers will migrate to sites with quality images. I know my own buying patterns are changing.

Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23

2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?

2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

gbalex · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:10 »

Quote from: Rinderart on January 21, 2014, 01:22

I said this 8 years ago. We are the fault of where we are. Our Work is "Our" assets. NOT THERES. thats the issue and until we understand that fact...We are screwed. But I think it's way to late now, We got lazy and did nothing about it when we could have and the majority were so happy with 25 cents and "Someone Liked my work" attitude and wanted to keep quiet. We can have the power, But we don't. Now, 20,000 can quit and be replaced in 30 Days. We had a chance and we didn't take it. 2005/2006. The owners saw this and said...Hmmmm , they don't care. So they took it.

We are only screwed if we choose to give up our power. I absolutely do not agree that we can be replaced in 30 days, that is a fallacy, there are many contributors but not many are cut out to produce HCV images. If IS did not miss Sean's images they would not have replaced his port with Yuri's and Andres's.

Learned Helplessness (The video's owner prevents external embedding)

gbalex · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:19 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 13:06

Quote from: gbalex on January 21, 2014, 12:56
Quote from: Copidosoma on January 21, 2014, 12:29
Here is how Istock values my images:

Date (DD/MM/YYYY)      Size    License    Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large   Regular   $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT     Large   Regular   $3.12 USD

'nuff said

It is called the SS effect, it was easy for IS to see who was gaining market share and they dropped prices in an attempt to plug the dam.

SS has no problem at all devaluing out assets to gain market share! As long at we believe the conditioned fallacy that we can do nothing to stop them, the micros will take advantage of our learned helplessness.

Instead of spreading the misinformation that we can do nothing about this inequity, it is time that we step up to the plate and demand fair compensation for out time, talent and resources.

We do have power we just have to take it back, if IS did not feel threatened by the contributor response of deleting images, they would not have removed Sean's portfolio. I removed my port from IS after that response and more people are doing it every day. They bought Yuri's and Andres ports but we all know the margins are slim and if they continue to lose quality contributors and ports one day they will find they will not be able to compete in the market or buy higher end contributors to fill the missing niches.

I think the trend has already started, I know more high end contributors who are shooting for macro sites, while leaving their sub par images for the micro sites. As this trend accelerates quality will drop on the micros and customers will migrate to sites with quality images. I know my own buying patterns are changing.

Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23

2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?

2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

You are comparing apples to oranges, we were shooting with point and shoots back then. Images were very low end.

Quality of Images at SS in 2004 - Jon E Oringer's Portfolio
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_username=shutterstock&page=27

Snip
Duck Swartz

So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other.

So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.

We haven’t raised prices in many years and that has been a great strategy so far to grow.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

luissantos84 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:22 »

its just unbelievable how there are STILL contributors saying iStock is valuing our work

its so much easier to blame SS right?

Ron · « **Reply #33 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:25 »

They went from 0.20 cent one rate to $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150.

Apples and apples. You can quote the same stuff over and over, maybe you just need to put your words to actions and delete your port from SS and send them an email why you did it.

cthoman · « **Reply #34 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:28 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 13:06

Quote from: gbalex on January 21, 2014, 12:56
Quote from: Copidosoma on January 21, 2014, 12:29
Here is how Istock values my images:

Date (DD/MM/YYYY)      Size    License    Royalty
20/01/2014 8:28 PM MST Large   Regular   $1.00 USD
12/03/2013 12:41 PM MDT     Large   Regular   $3.12 USD

'nuff said

It is called the SS effect, it was easy for IS to see who was gaining market share and they dropped prices in an attempt to plug the dam.

SS has no problem at all devaluing out assets to gain market share! As long at we believe the conditioned fallacy that we can do nothing to stop them, the micros will take advantage of our learned helplessness.

Instead of spreading the misinformation that we can do nothing about this inequity, it is time that we step up to the plate and demand fair compensation for out time, talent and resources.

We do have power we just have to take it back, if IS did not feel threatened by the contributor response of deleting images, they would not have removed Sean's portfolio. I removed my port from IS after that response and more people are doing it every day. They bought Yuri's and Andres ports but we all know the margins are slim and if they continue to lose quality contributors and ports one day they will find they will not be able to compete in the market or buy higher end contributors to fill the missing niches.

I think the trend has already started, I know more high end contributors who are shooting for macro sites, while leaving their sub par images for the micro sites. As this trend accelerates quality will drop on the micros and customers will migrate to sites with quality images. I know my own buying patterns are changing.

Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23

2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?

2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2013 RPD (rounded)

MSV - $23.50
TV - $14.50
CLO- $7.80
GL - $4.40
DT- $1.90
CanStockPhoto - $1.80
SS - $0.70

They still make money, but they aren't even in the ballpark for RPD of any of my other solid earners (except for 123RF which I ditched).

Ron · « **Reply #35 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:31 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 21, 2014, 13:28

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 13:06

Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23

2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?

2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

2013 RPD (rounded)

MSV - $23.50
TV - $14.50
CLO- $7.80
GL - $4.40
DT- $1.90
CanStockPhoto - $1.80
SS - $0.70

They still make money, but they aren't even in the ballpark for RPD of any of my other solid earners (except for 123RF which I ditched).

The RPD in 2004 on SS was 0.20 cent, your RPD in 2013 is 0.70 cent.

250% up.

cthoman · « **Reply #36 on:** January 21, 2014, 13:55 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 13:31

The RPD in 2004 on SS was 0.20 cent, your RPD in 2013 is 0.70 cent.

250% up.

Sweet! I can wait another 10 years and with the next 250%...

They'll still be the lowest.

Ron · « **Reply #37 on:** January 21, 2014, 14:13 »

My RPI on SS is 3x the RPI on Alamy.

My RPD on SS is 0.61, on Alamy its 19$

SS is my top earner, Alamy my 7th. Guess where I am putting my images.

There is a Macro agency that pays 50% of earnings, partnering with Getty where the royalty is 20%. If you get a partner sale you are paid 10%.

cthoman · « **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2014, 14:33 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 14:13

My RPI on SS is 3x the RPI on Alamy.

My RPD on SS is 0.61, on Alamy its 19$

SS is my top earner, Alamy my 7th. Guess where I am putting my images.

There is a Macro agency that pays 50% of earnings, partnering with Getty where the royalty is 20%. If you get a partner sale you are paid 10%.

That used to be true for me too (not anymore). I said the same thing about iStock as well at one time.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2014, 14:42 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 21, 2014, 14:33

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 14:13
My RPI on SS is 3x the RPI on Alamy.

My RPD on SS is 0.61, on Alamy its 19$

SS is my top earner, Alamy my 7th. Guess where I am putting my images.

There is a Macro agency that pays 50% of earnings, partnering with Getty where the royalty is 20%. If you get a partner sale you are paid 10%.

That used to be true for me too (not anymore). I said the same thing about iStock as well at one time.

now imagine if you were a professional contributing to IS/GI

you wouldn't even spend a single second here

of course you could always contribute to another 10 agencies as well

Red Dove · « **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2014, 14:56 »

One thing I would like to add is that the few buyer contacts I have are surprised when I tell them my cut is often a paltry 15% - but it doesn't stop them buying from that agency....just as we, for the most part, continue to buy coffee/smartphone tech/clothing from companies who treat their suppliers like dirt. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

As for the happy haven of the macros, I personally believe their market share will be significantly eroded in the next few years as the micros continue to supply massive quantities of work which is as good as (if not superior) at lower price points.

gbalex · « **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:19 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 13:25

They went from 0.20 cent one rate to $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150.

Apples and apples. You can quote the same stuff over and over, maybe you just need to put your words to actions and delete your port from SS and send them an email why you did it.

I thought you were not going to talk to me anymore, carry on comparing apples to oranges

Your doing a great job promoting SS.

Stick to managing your own port , I will decide where to place to ours.

Ron · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:37 »

Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.

You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:37 »

All I know is that I have virtually the same portfolio on SS as I do on IS. Monthly income from that portfolio on SS is now 3 times what it is on IS. Two years ago the monthly income from both was almost equal. I don't fee taken advantage of by SS.

cthoman · « **Reply #44 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:42 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37

You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.

Hopefully, this comment isn't directed at me as well. I can think of very few that have tried harder than me to escape. Either way, I'm not offended. If everybody thought the same way I did that probably means something horribly disastrous happened.

Ron · « **Reply #45 on:** January 21, 2014, 15:44 »

No no, wasnt directed at you. I think you make good comments and I have hearted you a few times as well.

bunhill · « **Reply #46 on:** January 21, 2014, 16:11 »

Quote from: Red Dove on January 21, 2014, 14:56

As for the happy haven of the macros, I personally believe their market share will be significantly eroded in the next few years as the micros continue to supply massive quantities of work which is as good as (if not superior) at lower price points.

I believe that the market for almost-free microstock images is going to be quickly destroyed by the market for completely free images (and by the public and legal adoption of essentially libertarian attitudes to rights). Long story short, there will be commissioned, expensive, editorial archive and free. Mostly free.

Free images will be supplied either from friends and neighbors on your network - or by images packaged on an all-you-can-eat basis (the inevitable outcome of subscription) as part of you being a member of this or that service. And how are people ever going to pay even for microstock again when the social media platforms deliver pictures to use for free? When an agency makes a deal with a social media platform it promotes to the public the idea that images are free.

The stock factories may have no future IMO. Perhaps for the same reasons that agencies no longer invest money shooting in-house content (it is not cost effective). But now even the agencies risk being disintermediated by the technology - and by the culture. Look at how much things have changed even within a decade. Time will come when the people the agencies are making these deals with today will get their images directly from their users in return for the service.

gbalex · « **Reply #47 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:03 »

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37

Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.

You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS. There is not a company on the planet that does not have room for improvement, I try address areas with room for improvement.

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37

You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.

Like a few others here you always seem to go there.

You conclude that because my sales have dropped that your own sales are higher than my own.

I learned long ago that it is not wise to share successes within the stock world.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:20 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 13:03

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37
Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.
You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS. There is not a company on the planet that does not have room for improvement, I try address areas with room for improvement.

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37
You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.
Like a few others here you always seem to go there. You conclude that because my sales have dropped that your own sales are higher than my own.

I learned long ago that it is not wise to share successes within the stock world.

I can conclude one for you, how about 20-30 times more income at SS comparing with IS?

gbalex · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:24 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 13:20

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 13:03
Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37
Well, you seem to keep quoting me, so you leave me no choice.
You are doing a find job as a shutterstock ambassador Ron. There are plenty of shutterstock fans on MS to offer one sided glowing reviews of SS. There is not a company on the planet that does not have room for improvement, I try address areas with room for improvement.

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 15:37
You like all the others, complaining but do nothing about it. How is that working out for you.
Like a few others here you always seem to go there. You conclude that because my sales have dropped that your own sales are higher than my own.

I learned long ago that it is not wise to share successes within the stock world.

I can conclude one for you, how about 20-30 times more income at SS comparing with IS?

I no longer have a port on IS and not because of sales, I find their business ethics deplorable. The kicker for me was the google drive fiasco.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24833 times)

Ron

ShadySue

Copidosoma

gbalex

Ron

gbalex

gbalex

luissantos84

Ron

cthoman

Ron

cthoman

Ron

cthoman

luissantos84

Red Dove

gbalex

Ron

ComfortEagle2095

cthoman

Ron

bunhill

gbalex

luissantos84

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors