Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24810 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:28 »

Quote from: gbalex 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.

not contributing to IS and SS, then I would love to know what are you up to?

Macro is going nuts right?

gbalex · « **Reply #51 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:31 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 13:28

Quote from: gbalex 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.

not contributing to IS and SS, then I would love to know what are you up to?

Macro is going nuts right?

Your deductive skills are off, that is what happens when you become biased.

Ron · « **Reply #52 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:36 »

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.

Let me clear two things up here because you are the master of fallacies.

Read back and you will see that I was just posting facts, and didnt include any opinion of my own. Just to counter some comments here that were only showing one side of the medal.

Second, I have never ever even one second thought my sales are higher then yours. I have always assumed you were a big player. You friend and attack people depending on their view of SS, and that is what is bothering me, nothing else.

As for your ambassador card, keep playing that, its just a silly attempt to try and put me in a bad light. I am positive about SS because MY sales keep growing and because they at least show they care about contributors. I am not happy about everything SS does, and I have always and still do make that very clear when needed.

Good luck pulling your port.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #53 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:46 »

how cannot I not enjoy SS when they play a big role in contributing to Micro (believe I am not the only one looking at the Poll results here), sure I would love to get 50% royalties like FT, DT, 123RF, IS are paying but in the end SS is the only one putting some food on my belly

I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy

gbalex · « **Reply #54 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:21 »

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 13:36

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.

Let me clear two things up here because you are the master of fallacies.

Read back and you will see that I was just posting facts, and didnt include any opinion of my own. Just to counter some comments here that were only showing one side of the medal.

Second, I have never ever even one second thought my sales are higher then yours. I have always assumed you were a big player. You friend and attack people depending on their view of SS, and that is what is bothering me, nothing else.

As for your ambassador card, keep playing that, its just a silly attempt to try and put me in a bad light. I am positive about SS because MY sales keep growing and because they at least show they care about contributors. I am not happy about everything SS does, and I have always and still do make that very clear when needed.

Good luck pulling your port.

Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken. I have never said I was pulling my port, thou they will no longer get my better work.

If key shutterstock managment openly admits; that long term they do not plan on raising prices or royalties, so that they can low ball competitors to gain market share. I will be happy to provide them content of lesser value.

I think it is apparent to most that I am not attacking you, I do occasionally disagree with some of the comments you post. Two completely different animals.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #55 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:26 »

Yes they do and they pay much less. Same can be said for buyers.

If people would understand that if SS or IS didn't "invent" microstock, someone else would have. It's the natural result of a global market created by the Internet and way too much production, provided by inexpensive high quality digital cameras.

Look at how we shop. Electronics stores are almost a thing of the past. People buy online. Camera stores, Ha Ha, one left in a city with 1 million people. B&H, Adorama, and others. And the big universal warehouse for almost anything is Amazon. Book stores, even the quaint ones with coffee and reading rooms, are almost extinct.

Stock photos? Someone in Timbuktu can shoot a wild animal photo, edit and upload and it's on the market in the UK by morning. OK maybe day after tomorrow. No slides to mail, no prints, no contact sheets and sorting. Just search, click and you have the image you need.

If you want to blame someone or something, blame technology and the Internet, not the people who make a business out of providing a service to a world demand.

Now about partner programs. I have dropped almost every agency that has anything that resembles one of those mystery partner programs. If you really want to lose all control of everything you every produced, just keep feeding the people who sell, resell and after that you have lost all connections, control and rights to your own images.

There's the problem. Greed wins over reason and too many people will feed the sites with hidden partner programs, that one can't opt out of. But heck, if it makes another 25 cents, people will do it.

Quote from: Mahavir on January 04, 2014, 16:43

Do the stock photo agencies really know the value of an image?

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:21

Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken. I have never said I was pulling my port, thou they will no longer get my better work.

Odd I seem to remember the person you are writing to, did that a few times. Was going to leave SS because of rejections and sales.

gbalex · « **Reply #56 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:41 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 13:46

how cannot I not enjoy SS when they play a big role in contributing to Micro (believe I am not the only one looking at the Poll results here), sure I would love to get 50% royalties like FT, DT, 123RF, IS are paying but in the end SS is the only one putting some food on my belly

I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy

I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.

Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #57 on:** January 22, 2014, 18:35 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:41

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 13:46
how cannot I not enjoy SS when they play a big role in contributing to Micro (believe I am not the only one looking at the Poll results here), sure I would love to get 50% royalties like FT, DT, 123RF, IS are paying but in the end SS is the only one putting some food on my belly

I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy

I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.

Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?

is that your contributor bug issue? looking at the most downloads? if so that is scary, honestly I believe SS should leave that feature for good, doesn't make any sense to tell other what is "hot"

gbalex · « **Reply #58 on:** January 22, 2014, 18:52 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 18:35

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:41
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 13:46
how cannot I not enjoy SS when they play a big role in contributing to Micro (believe I am not the only one looking at the Poll results here), sure I would love to get 50% royalties like FT, DT, 123RF, IS are paying but in the end SS is the only one putting some food on my belly

I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy

I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.

Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?

is that your contributor bug issue? looking at the most downloads? if so that is scary, honestly I believe SS should leave that feature for good, doesn't make any sense to tell other what is "hot"

It is not a bug, they disabled the simple Top 100 Database Query so that we will not see where they are pushing sales.

cascoly · « **Reply #59 on:** January 22, 2014, 19:08 »

some of these topics came up during the discussion of pricepoints in symbiostock area

there's the broader issue of 'creative destruction' that many photographers seem to miss -- as technology changes, old market patterns change too -- family farms cannot compete with agribusiness unless they find a new niche such as organic food. photos that used to bring $100 now may only bring $10. the photo hasn't changed, but basic economic conditions have.

there are many photographers who haven't kept pace with the modern world -- many pictures that sold for $100 or $1000 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago did not sell because of their intrinsic value, but because of the market. today, there are many sources of free images, so for many of us, our images are just not going to sell at those higher price levels - and they shouldn't! as buyers become smarter and features like google Images become more powerful, stock images will be much more a commodity than a fine art market. More power to those who can sell their images at $100 or more from a sym site, but I don't think that's going to be the norm

cthoman · « **Reply #60 on:** January 22, 2014, 19:23 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 22, 2014, 19:08

More power to those who can sell their images at $100 or more from a sym site, but I don't think that's going to be the norm

I guess it depends on what we are talking about. People still sell extended licenses. It's not an everyday occurrence, but there is still value in having that higher price for those that want it.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #61 on:** January 23, 2014, 16:03 »

Not going to disagree with what you pointed out about most popular.

Or luissantos84. Which is a conflict, because I'd rather if they didn't show the top 100 at all, it just leads new people so be "inspired" and copy those images, because, hey, it's one of the top 100, isn't it?

But the suddenly broken part? How's that? Ten year old site and a feature that's been there since the start, suddenly stops functioning?

New photos favored, old photos favored, people still shout both and have personal proof in their numbers. I know it can't be both and suspect it's neither. No advantage for anything and that's why the varied and conflicting claims.

How does anyone from either end, explain that someone the same day will write the complete opposite about their New or Old photos? Doesn't make sense.

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:41

I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.

Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?

grey1 · « **Reply #62 on:** January 23, 2014, 16:54 »

How about turning it around and ask. Do the buyers really know and understand the value of a picture? paying cents for it.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #63 on:** January 23, 2014, 17:22 »

Quote from: grey1 on January 23, 2014, 16:54

How about turning it around and ask. Do the buyers really know and understand the value of a picture? paying cents for it.

Or... Do Photographers really know and understand the value of their images?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 23, 2014, 19:03 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on January 23, 2014, 17:22

Quote from: grey1 on January 23, 2014, 16:54
How about turning it around and ask. Do the buyers really know and understand the value of a picture? paying cents for it.

Or... Do Photographers really know and understand the value of their images?

SURE! let's all stop selling in microstock and open a "real" store on a street somewhere

we can close the all internet thing as well

actually I am going to ditch the toilet and start showering outside in the lake

Rinderart · « **Reply #65 on:** January 23, 2014, 20:58 »

Some very good Points here People.

gbalex · « **Reply #66 on:** January 24, 2014, 11:21 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 23, 2014, 16:03

Not going to disagree with what you pointed out about most popular.

Or luissantos84. Which is a conflict, because I'd rather if they didn't show the top 100 at all, it just leads new people so be "inspired" and copy those images, because, hey, it's one of the top 100, isn't it?

But the suddenly broken part? How's that? Ten year old site and a feature that's been there since the start, suddenly stops functioning?

New photos favored, old photos favored, people still shout both and have personal proof in their numbers. I know it can't be both and suspect it's neither. No advantage for anything and that's why the varied and conflicting claims.

How does anyone from either end, explain that someone the same day will write the complete opposite about their New or Old photos? Doesn't make sense.

Quote from: gbalex on January 22, 2014, 15:41
I would enjoy Shutterstock more if they fixed their buggy site on the contributor end and raised their prices to a level sustainable & fair to contributors. And I have issues with their NEW heavy skew toward a search that gives the competitive advantage to new ports.

Let me ask you this. After ten plus years of providing download information on the Top 100 downloads page; why do you suppose it suddenly became broken? And why do you suppose they have not fixed it?

For over ten years SS did not have a problem exposing our Top 100 images to hords of copiers. Suddenly just when they are making massive search changes the Top 100 becomes stuck on an old date when the programming had previously been set to the current week. That does not happen to a simple query unless you make changes to the page.

In the beginning I too was happy to see that my best sellers were not visible the copy brigade, until I realized that I was no longer getting the numbers on new images necessary to be included on that page. SS exposed our images to copiers so that they could make more money themselves, I highly doubt that the new IPO caused a sudden serge in concern for the welfare of top 100 contributors. It is clear that they do not want us to see the images being favored or promoted by the search over the images that have been buried so deeply that buyers will never see them.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #67 on:** January 24, 2014, 13:16 »

Thanks gbalex that explains it better, I didn't quite understand what you were getting at. I wouldn't be on the top 100 page anyway. But makes sense from your perspective, sales and history.

I was thinking in terms of general sales, the general mood, where old photos don't sell, new photos don't sell, and "everyone" is showing lower in the search than they used to be. Some impossible claims that are being made. I tend to think that people are generalizing and trying to explain it somehow, instead of accepting that - the slice of the pie is getting smaller with 32,933,525 royalty-free stock images / 234,470 new stock images added this week.

It's bound to hurt anyone's sales because of spreading the wealth, or the ever slowing, dribble of pocket change, depending on how one views it. And still an 80 on the survey here? Next best is 37?

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2014, 19:03

actually I am going to... start showering outside in the lake

Closer to the truth for awhile than you think. Rivers and campgrounds, sleeping in rest areas.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #68 on:** January 24, 2014, 13:44 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 24, 2014, 13:16

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 23, 2014, 19:03
actually I am going to... start showering outside in the lake

Closer to the truth for awhile than you think. Rivers and campgrounds, sleeping in rest areas.

for sure Pete, my point is that we cannot stop microstock/internet/photography/etc so better to adapt or just pack and leave for good, we all know how far we can fight regarding agencies moves which is close to zero, finding alternatives like a "real" job might be the best solution if things go even worst than we expected, again we all have different ambitions and expectations

saying that we don't know the value of our work is ridiculous and untrue, we do know its value and what we believe it is right for it, the main problem is the lack of "opportunities" we have to control it in order to survive in this industry, I believe that Symbio will have an important word here but still soon in my eyes

gbalex · « **Reply #69 on:** January 26, 2014, 13:08 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 24, 2014, 13:16

Thanks gbalex that explains it better, I didn't quite understand what you were getting at. I wouldn't be on the top 100 page anyway. But makes sense from your perspective, sales and history.

I was thinking in terms of general sales, the general mood, where old photos don't sell, new photos don't sell, and "everyone" is showing lower in the search than they used to be. Some impossible claims that are being made. I tend to think that people are generalizing and trying to explain it somehow, instead of accepting that - the slice of the pie is getting smaller with 32,933,525 royalty-free stock images / 234,470 new stock images added this week.

It's bound to hurt anyone's sales because of spreading the wealth, or the ever slowing, dribble of pocket change, depending on how one views it. And still an 80 on the survey here? Next best is 37?

Pete it is a fallacy and not true that the slice of the pie is getting smaller. Shutterstocks market share is growing by leaps and bounds.

Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013.
While Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from $2.10 in 2011 to $2.35 in 2013.

It is telling how long term contributors with more experience, better equipment and often times better content are seeing revenue decreases while at the same time Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents.

It is also telling that many long term contributors are complaining about experiencing large drops when they should be seeing an increase in sales per image uploaded.

     Three Months Ended September 30,
     2011      2013
Number of paid downloads     14.8      25.4
Revenue per download     $ 2.10   $ 2.35
Images in our collection (end of period) 16.2      29.7

     Three Months Ended September 30,
Images in SS collection (end of period)     16.2      29.7
Divided By Number of paid downloads     14.8       25.4
     1.094     1.169

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1874040

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499

Shelma1 · « **Reply #70 on:** January 26, 2014, 13:36 »

Shutterstock's market share may be growing, but is the market itself growing? If not, then yeah, the slice of pie gets smaller for each of us...unless we can find a way to grow our own market share, which means an even smaller slice for others.

pancaketom · « **Reply #71 on:** January 26, 2014, 17:18 »

Even if the market is growing as long as it is growing slower than the number of new images then the slice that goes to the individual contributor will on average shrink.

Maybe the long term contributors with huge and successful ports were getting a larger market share than they deserved from advantageous search placement and now they are getting what they deserve. (deserve isn't necessarily the right word, but perhaps early sales back when there was little competition was weighted more heavily before and now it isn't). The larger the image libraries get the more important search placement is.

If the number of contributors and the number of images doubles and the number of sales doubles then the agency take doubles but each contributor sees no change. Now imagine if the images and contributors double but sales only go up 50% - the agency still wins but the contributor gets a smaller slice. It doesn't mean microstock is dead or the market is crashing, but contributors need to reevaluate.

gbalex · « **Reply #72 on:** January 26, 2014, 17:54 »

Quote from: pancaketom on January 26, 2014, 17:18

Even if the market is growing as long as it is growing slower than the number of new images then the slice that goes to the individual contributor will on average shrink.

Maybe the long term contributors with huge and successful ports were getting a larger market share than they deserved from advantageous search placement and now they are getting what they deserve. (deserve isn't necessarily the right word, but perhaps early sales back when there was little competition was weighted more heavily before and now it isn't). The larger the image libraries get the more important search placement is.

If the number of contributors and the number of images doubles and the number of sales doubles then the agency take doubles but each contributor sees no change. Now imagine if the images and contributors double but sales only go up 50% - the agency still wins but the contributor gets a smaller slice. It doesn't mean microstock is dead or the market is crashing, but contributors need to reevaluate.

No need for conjecture, we have the actual numbers and downloads are not growing slower than the number of new images added. In fact it is the opposite, growth in downloads is growing faster than images added. Despite the influx of new IS contributors.

That is still not good news because SS is purposly keeping the value of our images down to gain market share when key decision makers admit that they could raise prices and have not done in many years so that they can low ball our assets to gain market share.

Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013.

Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from $2.10 in 2011 to $2.35 in 2013.

And Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents.

Ron · « **Reply #73 on:** January 26, 2014, 18:00 »

When SS makes more money, I make more money, because I get 23-30% of that. Well done SS.

gbalex · « **Reply #74 on:** January 26, 2014, 18:45 »

Quote from: Ron on January 26, 2014, 18:00

When SS makes more money, I make more money, because I get 23-30% of that. Well done SS.

Only if your images are included in front page searches, the ramifications will not hit you until your content is excluded over files that will drive SSTK Revenue Per Download higher. Until then reality will continue to fly right over your head.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do the agencies really know value of images? (Read 24810 times)

luissantos84

gbalex

Ron

luissantos84

gbalex

Uncle Pete

gbalex

luissantos84

gbalex

cascoly

cthoman

Uncle Pete

grey1

Copidosoma

luissantos84

Rinderart

gbalex

Uncle Pete

luissantos84

gbalex

Shelma1

pancaketom

gbalex

Ron

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors