MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Mahavir on January 04, 2014, 16:43
-
Do the stock photo agencies really know the value of an image? Some photos are accepted by some agencies, same photos are rejected by other agencies. Many times, the reasons of rejections they give are funny.
If we upload a rejected photo once again after a gap of time, there is a chance for it to get accepted. Isn't it funny?
-
Isn't it funny?
Yes. Bunch of amateurs (reviewers) working with professionals.
-
Isn't it funny?
yes, rotf
-
Do the stock photo agencies really know the value of an image?
Nope.
-
wrong. An image have no value in it self.
it is not so much about images as about data and licences.
Since we are photographers we think we sell images.
But thats only us.
The agencies sell different things, like an easy and quick access to a licence to a certain data file.
The agency sells a combination of legal access to an amount of data and availability of that data.
Search engine and licence.
Thats what they sell.
What we photographers sell is keywords and copyright. Not images.
Which is why, ironically enough, equipment is not important.
and why reviews are not important, as long as keywords and image fit together.
And if you doubt what I say, you can begin to speculate why isolated on white sells so well.
-
Mostly I agree with JPSDK.
A two more cents. A value of the image depends on the NEED of picture. That's why a buyer pay no regard to a $.50 value fantastic shot, made with $30k value Hasselblad, with a gorgeous model, payed $300/hour, BUT he pays several hundreds dollars for extended license for grainy seashore snapshot, made 20 years ago with an old, cheapest film camera. If the image is not needed, it does not have any value at all.
-
Mostly I agree with JPSDK.
A two more cents. A value of the image depends on the NEED of picture. That's why a buyer pay no regard to a $.50 value fantastic shot, made with $30k value Hasselblad, with a gorgeous model, payed $300/hour, BUT he pays several hundreds dollars for extended license for grainy seashore snapshot, made 20 years ago with an old, cheapest film camera. If the image is not needed, it does not have any value at all.
I agree with you, but you don't answer to the question
Do the agencies really know value of images?
but to the question
Do the customers really know value of images?
(customers have needs and they look for what they need, no more)
it is a little different.
Well, probably agencies know the value of the images… or they would do another job.
But they don't respect the value of the contributors who are only considered as milking cows, more and more, while they make more and more money on their backs (udders)…
This is what they do, and they understand very well that they can do it and how they can do it.
The only value that they see in images is the value of images in number, surely not the value of single images.
-
yes the agencies know the value of an image/s, that is why they make millions of dollars profit, and they also know that most microstock photographers do not know the value of an image by agreeing to sell their images for a pittance in royalties.
my conclusion is that the agencies know full well the value of the image/s but they also do not respect the true value of the contributors who create these images.
i think the question should be - do photographers know the true value of their images?
-
yes the agencies know the value of an image/s, that is why they make millions of dollars profit, and they also know that most microstock photographers do not know the value of an image by agreeing to sell their images for a pittance in royalties.
my conclusion is that the agencies know full well the value of the image/s but they also do not respect the true value of the contributors who create these images.
i think the question should be - do photographers know the true value of their images?
I disagree with this. I think they could make more by selling images at higher prices. I know I do, so I'm not sure why they think they can't. I think iStock proved you can do well with charging more than your competitors. Obviously, they have had problems too, but most of those seemed self-inflicted by squeezing both customers and contributors at the same time.
-
yes the agencies know the value of an image/s, that is why they make millions of dollars profit, and they also know that most microstock photographers do not know the value of an image by agreeing to sell their images for a pittance in royalties.
my conclusion is that the agencies know full well the value of the image/s but they also do not respect the true value of the contributors who create these images.
i think the question should be - do photographers know the true value of their images?
I disagree with this. I think they could make more by selling images at higher prices. I know I do, so I'm not sure why they think they can't. I think iStock proved you can do well with charging more than your competitors. Obviously, they have had problems too, but most of those seemed self-inflicted by squeezing both customers and contributors at the same time.
I disagree with your disagreement :)
Istock is the agency primarily responsible for the original decline of a once very prosperous industry for it's contributors on the whole. that said, if it was not IS it would have been another agency.
"In 2002, iStock began selling credits. Now you could get a high-quality image for under a dollar, and the artist who contributed it got paid a royalty. It was an entirely new way of doing things. Some people called it the birth of 'microstock'." - from the istock site.
now when IS was so boldly selling images for 'under a dollar' the likes of GI was selling the lowest res RF image for websites for $75. Soon to follow suite were all these other microstock agencies wanting to get in on the action. The result is the likes of the founder of IS and SS are now incredibly wealthy by creating a new price structure for imagery that has since seen the devaluation of pricing industry wide. GI has followed suite, and it is now widely accepted that images are now worth a fraction of what they were just 12 years ago.
i applaud IS for trying to get things back to where they should be price wise, but this is more from the powers at GI than from IS. still though, thousands of photographers submit to sites that sell sub images and rave on about the BME by accepting a royalty rate of 0.38c or whatever it is. even though they are attempting to raise prices, contributors whine and moan about it.
this is why i ask - do photographers really know the true value of their imagery? The agencies sure do.
-
Mostly I agree with JPSDK.
A two more cents. A value of the image depends on the NEED of picture. That's why a buyer pay no regard to a $.50 value fantastic shot, made with $30k value Hasselblad, with a gorgeous model, payed $300/hour, BUT he pays several hundreds dollars for extended license for grainy seashore snapshot, made 20 years ago with an old, cheapest film camera. If the image is not needed, it does not have any value at all.
I agree with you, but you don't answer to the question
Do the agencies really know value of images?
but to the question
Do the customers really know value of images?
(customers have needs and they look for what they need, no more)
it is a little different.
Well, probably agencies know the value of the images… or they would do another job.
But they don't respect the value of the contributors who are only considered as milking cows, more and more, while they make more and more money on their backs (udders)…
This is what they do, and they understand very well that they can do it and how they can do it.
The only value that they see in images is the value of images in number, surely not the value of single images.
We could turn things upside down a bit.
The images are useless if they are not brought in front of the customers. So the agency adds value to an otherwise worthless asset (empty your harddisk) by providing a platform that brings that asset into contact with the customers.
Which again is exactly why they can be so greedy and take up to 85 % commission or worse.
All this is made possible by a combination of digitalization, and internet, and the ability to process and control large amounts of data.
So its not us photographers that are stupid, we are moneterizing a new hitherto worthless asset, thats smart enough, but the agencies are smarter and have a grip in the long end of the stick because we need them.
But that can change, middlemen are middlemen and everybody try to avoid them, as well as the internet can be centralized it can also be decentralized.
We see it with news agencies, newspapers and tv stations. They loose business these days as more and more traffic becomes peer to peer.
-
yes the agencies know the value of an image/s, that is why they make millions of dollars profit, and they also know that most microstock photographers do not know the value of an image by agreeing to sell their images for a pittance in royalties.
my conclusion is that the agencies know full well the value of the image/s but they also do not respect the true value of the contributors who create these images.
i think the question should be - do photographers know the true value of their images?
I disagree with this. I think they could make more by selling images at higher prices. I know I do, so I'm not sure why they think they can't. I think iStock proved you can do well with charging more than your competitors. Obviously, they have had problems too, but most of those seemed self-inflicted by squeezing both customers and contributors at the same time.
I always suspected that SS in particular kept prices low to gain market share and SS management confirmed that price undercutting is indeed their growth strategy in a recent interview.
One of the gripes I have with SS is the impact its pricing has had on other stock sites. They have had to contend with SS's grab for market share in the form of SS not raising prices for over 8 years. SS has been able keep pricing low at the expense of contributors even though increasing content standards have increased our content productions expenses.
They are well aware of our increased costs and if SS had to pay to produce it's assets you can bet they would have been forced to raise prices.
One of the biggest problems I have with SS is that their growth strategy comes at the expense of it's contributors.
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.
Snip
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 then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
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 (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)
-
@gbalex...
so it appears SS is purposely exploiting content providers for their own gain.
just one more reason i'd never contribute to them.
-
@gbalex...
so it appears SS is purposely exploiting content providers for their own gain.
just one more reason i'd never contribute to them.
I think that's the business model of most businesses, for better or worse.
-
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.
-
@gbalex...
so it appears SS is purposely exploiting content providers for their own gain.
just one more reason i'd never contribute to them.
That's definitely iStock out of the window for you, too :)
Actually, it's all of them. You need to find another job where the person handing you cash isn't exploiting you. Off hand, the first job that comes to mind is being a self-employed plumber. That way, you are the one doing the exploiting (at least, you are if you are in the UK). Or you could try being a lawyer or private practice doctor. Or even a shareholder in Shutterstock :)
On topic, the agencies do know the value of an image: as long as we are willing to keep providing them in return for what they pay us in commissions, then they've got the value right. Ultimately, we are the ones who value our images, by determining what sort of remuneration we are willing to part with them for. We can, if we like, value them at $10,000 each - and then sit back to wait for a buyer who agrees with the valuation.
-
Photography is nothing special. Corporations get where they are because they act as a valve between supply and demand and most suppliers don't have the the assets or time to go around it.
Besides we're not talking about oil paintings or diamonds here, photographs (and I mean high quality images) are in abundance and increasing by the second, which in itself devalues the commodity.
Thinking we ever had control once digital allowed significantly more people to increase quality and work rate is truly naive from a business POV.
-
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.
I agree that "we" are to blame for where we are and how much we get for our images - just because "we" are all still uploading to these terms.
I disagree that "we" ever had a chance to change that - because there really is no "we" that could stand up and fight for something. It's a huge number of individual contributors, and they will never all have the same incentives to take a stand, there will always be a big enough number for who the current deal looks good enough.
-
All the people complaining now, who were submitting 8 years ago are constantly raving to newbies how they raked in the money, and that 'we had to be there' when it was all gold at the end of the rainbow.
And now they complain about the value of their images. Any professional photographer who valued their work, and starting submitting as RF micro, devalued their own work that same instance.
The only excuse I have for myself is that I didnt know any better. I wanted to sell my images and ended submitting to the agencies. I had no idea what RF and RM meant, and all the history of it. I found SS, DP, CanStockPhoto, DT and 123 when googling how to sell images. I found this forum, saw the table on the right, and started submitting to the first 10 agencies.
-
I guess the question is, what can be done about it now.
1. Are there any macro stock agencies that I can submit my work to. Getty picks from flickr, that's all I know
2. Would it make more sense for the elite micro stockers to move to macro stock and all (considering that even though they get a pittance per sale but there are a huge number of sales that give them a good value per image)
3. Should micro be served only by newbies, sort of like how you can get handicrafts made by the apprentices/students at prices that are way cheaper than what the masters sell them for. So it's a sort of proving ground, you work here selling dirt cheap till you learn the ropes and then move up
4. We'll need to remember that pricing will hit the demand too. Right now many bloggers, small website
owners etc easily buy images since it's barely a couple of bucks a pop. But do you think they'd do the same if the image cost $100? They'd probably resort to using the free alternatives from Google or worse pirating the images
And once more, if I feel that my images have a much higher value than what MS gives, where do I turn to? Getty (can I submit there?), FAA ( I need to pay them right?) or are there any that I am missing
-
...
4. We'll need to remember that pricing will hit the demand too. Right now many bloggers, small website
owners etc easily buy images since it's barely a couple of bucks a pop. But do you think they'd do the same if the image cost $100? They'd probably resort to using the free alternatives from Google or worse pirating the images
You whats funny about that? Bloggers probably pay a higher price for your images then the big multimillion dollar corporations as I dont see a blogger having a subscription deal. They dont need 750 images per month.
A blogger most likely buys the images with credits or cash (Credit card) or as ODD. A big company most likely has the subscription package. You make more per image off of the blogger than off of the big company.
-
I agree that "we" are to blame for where we are and how much we get for our images
Nobody is to blame IMO. There are more and more pictures therefore of course they are getting cheaper. Soon many people will be wearing their camera and continually uploading. Probably companies will start giving away free devices in exchange for the right to harvest your image stream, the same as they harvest our metadata today. And it would not surprise me at all if signing a release were not one day part of the T&C. So with facial recognition and / or tagging the pictures of you which your friend took will potentially be ready to use.
Right now many bloggers, small website owners etc easily buy images since it's barely a couple of bucks a pop.
Also remember that there are fewer and fewer active bloggers and small website owners. Many bloggers and small websites have moved to the social media and micro blogging. And many of those who are still blogging will today be using free content - something their friend or one of the employees or a customer took with an iPhone and shared on FB.
Also - many fewer people are sitting at home doing a blog. Many fewer people even use a traditional computer or laptop.
-
There are more blogs than ever and every blog needs images. Doesnt matter if it was written on a train or on a toilet in the pub.
http://socialmediatoday.com/mikevelocity/1698201/blogging-stats-2013-infographic (http://socialmediatoday.com/mikevelocity/1698201/blogging-stats-2013-infographic)
-
They know the value of images, and they know that this value exceeds the price point they have. But they also know the value of the money they earn. If they can have 60,000 photographers sending their images and agreeing to sell them for 0.30 it's great, as long they sell a lot. And they probably will, selling so cheap. Individual photographers make a few dollars, but they make a few dollars x 2 or 3 x and then x 60,000. That's and old trick. Have many people working for you, no matter if each one makes not much; you'll do a lot.
The real trick is being able to convince these 60,000 people that they must go on producing, assuming production costs, sending stuff and being ok with these returns (or even wooyaying you)
At the end of the day we are the cheap wh*ores of the business. In any project made with subs images, the cost of these images is nil. Nothing. Nada. Rien de rien. Designer gets hundreds, production gets hundreds or thousands, placement in media can even cost ten thousands. Images, some cents. Not even worth to count this ridiculous expense. The boy that carries coffee gets much more.
-
There are more blogs than ever and every blog needs images. Doesnt matter if it was written on a train or on a toilet in the pub.
[url]http://socialmediatoday.com/mikevelocity/1698201/blogging-stats-2013-infographic[/url] ([url]http://socialmediatoday.com/mikevelocity/1698201/blogging-stats-2013-infographic[/url])
I am not contradicting you - but can you point be to the part of that infographic which says something about there not being fewer active blogs today than before the FB era ?
Incidentally - I have the impression that many/most of the big pro blogs are using mostly free PR content.
Study: Blogging in decline as social media takes over (http://www.bizreport.com/2012/04/study-blogging-in-decline-as-social-media-takes-over.html)
Blogging Declines As Newer Tools Rule (http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/cmr/studiesandresearch/2011_inc500.pdf) (University of Massachusetts)
Blogs Wane as the Young Drift to Sites Like Twitter (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/technology/internet/21blog.html?_r=0) (New York Times)
Everyone Uses E-mail, But Blogging Is On the Decline (http://mashable.com/2010/12/15/generations-internet-infographic/) (Mashable)
etc
-
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. :)
-
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 ...
-
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 >:(
-
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.
-
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 (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? (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 (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 (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 (http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU7RBqTndJ8#noexternalembed)
-
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
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23[/url])
2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?[/url])
2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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 (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 (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)
-
its just unbelievable how there are STILL contributors saying iStock is valuing our work :o
its so much easier to blame SS right?
-
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.
-
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
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23[/url])
2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?[/url])
2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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).
-
Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23[/url])
2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?[/url])
2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
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
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
2013 RPD (rounded)
MSV - $23.50
TV - $14.50
CLO- $7.80
GL - $4.40
DT- $1.90
CanStockPhoto - $1.80
SS - $0.70
They still make money, but they aren't even in the ballpark for RPD of any of my other solid earners (except for 123RF which I ditched).
The RPD in 2004 on SS was 0.20 cent, your RPD in 2013 is 0.70 cent.
250% up.
-
The RPD in 2004 on SS was 0.20 cent, your RPD in 2013 is 0.70 cent.
250% up.
Sweet! I can wait another 10 years and with the next 250%...
They'll still be the lowest.
-
My RPI on SS is 3x the RPI on Alamy.
My RPD on SS is 0.61, on Alamy its 19$
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%.
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
now imagine if you were a professional contributing to IS/GI ;D
you wouldn't even spend a single second here ;) of course you could always contribute to another 10 agencies as well 8)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
-
No no, wasnt directed at you. I think you make good comments and I have hearted you a few times as well.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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? ;D
-
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.
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? ;D
Your deductive skills are off, that is what happens when you become biased.
-
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.
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.
-
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 ;D
I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy ;D
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Do the stock photo agencies really know the value of an image?
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. ::)
-
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 ;D
I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy ;D
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?
-
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 ;D
I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy ;D
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"
-
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 ;D
I am sure you have found something nobody else did so enjoy ;D
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
How about turning it around and ask. Do the buyers really know and understand the value of a picture? paying cents for it. ::)
-
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?
-
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 ;D
we can close the all internet thing as well ;D
actually I am going to ditch the toilet and start showering outside in the lake ;)
-
Some very good Points here People.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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
-
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=1874040)
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499 (http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When SS makes more money, I make more money, because I get 23-30% of that. Well done SS.
-
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.
-
Reality is January BME. I'll have that fly over my head any day.
-
It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms :o
-
It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms :o
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.
Once SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content; merit has little value in the search and that is not good for any of us.
-
SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content
low cost content? what are your sources? looking forward to see the real data
-
I'm confused - so buyers are forced to buy images they don't want? :-\
-
Or alternatively fresh newer images have a chance against older images that have been overexposed
-
It seems some think they have a divine right to be top of the search algorithms :o
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.
Once SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content; merit has little value in the search and that is not good for any of us.
Bollocks, you make that up. There are plenty of 38 cent contribs still hitting BME.
-
ja, I think so. We have never heard of that. Thats an istock stunt.
-
Those who are doing well rarely present counter arguments in the forums for four reasons I can think of straight away:
1. Too busy working on their port/business and can't be bothered
2. Knowing they will be ridiculed by others who apparently know better
3. They have no anonymity in the forums and are fed up with seeing their work plagiarized
4. Prefer to trust to their own experience and metrics in the absence of verifiable hardcore data
G'night.
(Added in the cold light of day) I fully appreciate the irony of not having any data to back these points up
-
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.
Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.
-
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.
Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.
+ one Million. My port did NOT go cold on it's own.
-
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.
Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.
Sounds like what happened at the previous msg fave site.
Those who were doing well there tended to disparage those who were seeing falling sales, blaming it all on their quantity and/or quality. Funny how most of them seem to have totally disappeared.
-
I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.
In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.
-
I think you are right. Many people keep uploading the same old concepts but in other variations. Now if you take life-styles as an example. Stereotyped models, golden handshakes, business people talking in phones and so on. Not to speak of isolations.
Its an overkill. Yet agencies keep accepting them all over the place. The quantity factor is in fact destroying quality as well as any special work.
SS unfortunately are masters of filling up with identical and similar content, of course being mainly a subscription site.
I am down myself about 30% every single month but its well made up by Rights-managed material.
Micro is somewhat getting out of hand and in a couple of years time...... who knows.
-
Well, you can use me as a control group. I haven't uploaded anything since 2010, and my earnings are down around 50%. I expected some drop, but I've been surprised that it continues to drop. I was also disappointed in a lack of growth in the last year (2010) that I did upload too. It's been a trend for me.
-
4 years is a long time imo
-
I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.
In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.
Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce you make generalizations about what we produce. Most of your remarks are made up out of thin air or at the very least representative of a few ports you have visited.
I guess if you repeat your fabricated misinformation enough times, you think you can convince people your comments are true. There are plenty of contributors on top of current 2014 trends that are seeing huge drops.
Again you are doing a fine job of promoting SS and presenting it in the most positive of light.
-
Over the last few months I have notice a trend by those who are doing well to marginalize those of us who have experienced sudden and extreme drops in sales at shutterstock.
Carry on mates and enjoy your bump in sales, it does not change the fact that some of us are in fact seeing huge drops after the search changes after we worked long and hard to build respectable incomes on SS. There are plenty of us speaking out and if you think you are immune, you are not.
Sounds like what happened at the previous msg fave site.
Those who were doing well there tended to disparage those who were seeing falling sales, blaming it all on their quantity and/or quality. Funny how most of them seem to have totally disappeared.
Unfortunately that did come to mind, we always think that hard work and research will protect us.
-
I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.
In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.
Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce ...
LOL, I never said you were dumping SS, I wished you luck pulling your port, since you are so unhappy with them. And two, its a fact, about the images I referred to.
Master of misinformaton... lol. Hows the tinfoil hat fitting?
-
Ron you might want to try that tinfoil hat on, the market is not growing at the same rate as new files coming online. Simple maths, long term you're f&^^ed, we all are.
Eventually SS will suck everyone into the subs grinder with everyone uploading the same work over and over again, digging, diluting and panicking. All SS care about is taking down Getty, if contributors are collateral damage so be it.
The microstock model for contributors was flawed from the beginning, we just didn't see it because we were all to busy undercutting the macro guys and slapping ourselves on the back.
-
When you've dated all the other fish in the sea and found them wanting, you'd better really love the one you're left with.
-
I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.
In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.
Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation. First you say I am dumping shutterstock (never said that) and now without knowing what type of content most of us produce ...
LOL, I never said you were dumping SS, I wished you luck pulling your port, since you are so unhappy with them. And two, its a fact, about the images I referred to.
Master of misinformaton... lol. Hows the tinfoil hat fitting?
this guy is a total joke, looking forward to see his source regarding the low cost content having better search placement
SS decided to start giving higher search preference to low cost content
-
I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you who always seem to be in a row with one person or another. Better to rise above than to entertain those who enjoy conflict.
As for the search: It is simplistic to think in an either or scenario in regard to cost of files. The search is not one dimensional it changes over time. It looks to be based on Hierarchies: Tiers of attributes, such as year > month > date, or Continent > Country > City, e.g. your “country” would be “Europe.Spain”, and your “city” field would be “Europe.Spain.Madrid” — so there’d be no mixing of Madrid, Alabama in your results when filtering or faceting by city.
Some more complex units of measurement might be the total number of dollars spent after a user performed a given search or the age of individual files or contributor accounts – search changes are constant and look to be spanning the age of the entire image database data set so their search serves ever changing multidimensional data sets from the image database based on what type of return per download they are seeking at any given moment.
With the goal of returning higher Return Per Download to stockholders it is not surprising to see the dataset mix change or evolve to a higher percentage of low cost files being added to the most popular search. Hence the drops some of us are seeing.
-
I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you
Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken.
Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation.
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.
Until then reality will continue to fly right over your head.
Found in this thread only.
-
I will sidestep the childish derisive comments from a few of you
Ahh the master of clouding issues and spreading fallacies has spoken.
Ahhh again the master of spreading misinformation.
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.
Until then reality will continue to fly right over your head.
Found in this thread only.
Not at all surprising you left out your side of the conversations Ron. The common theme in all your conflicts is that you feel you are an attacked victim. You seem incapable of understanding or seeing how your own actions affect your interactions with others.
Time for me to step back and take my own inventory!
-
Not at all surprising you left out your side of the conversations Ron. The common theme in all your conflicts is that you feel you are an attacked victim. You seem incapable of understanding or seeing how your own actions affect your interactions with others.
Time for me to step back and take my own inventory!
No, it was already established I am childish, I just wanted to show you, you arent any different. You are calling the kettle black.
On a serious note, what are you trying to achieve by posting all your findings on MSG? Why dont you take it up with Shutterstock directly? Why arent you posting on the Shutterstock forum? Why only here? It makes more sense to post it where the Shutterstock contributors can read it. Half of them dont come here.
You can easily open a second account just to post in the SS forum anonymously.
Just my two cents.
-
very well said Ron!
-
I wish someone said I was childish. That would be a compliment at my age...LOL
-
I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales.
In fact its hurting your portfolio more than it helps. Because your similar images will show all the versions. Instead of showing more different similar images, it will now show the white version, the black version, and the black and white version.
Fact?? whos Fact? yours.. Ron..It works for me. Everytime I sell a color version, The B&W also sells at least 90% of the time because of SUBs and "The same model" Tab., Other sites Not so.. My Volume is down and it's not from doing Black to white backgrounds and vise verse.I specifically shoot knowing Im gonna convert most of the time because "MY" stats and or any success over the years I've had, skew that way and It could mean I do presentable B&W Images and Plan for it at the time of exposure and Lighting. And..My B&W far outsell my color versions in every outlet from stock to print, Always have and just about every student I've ever taught, the first thing They ask is to show them My workflow doing it.. My port reflects what I like and what I submit takes me away from the mostly boring stuff I do photographically that pays the bills and buys the best equipment. If I relied on stock to satisfy Being creative or financially solvent. I'd be living in a alley and I knew that 9 years ago.
It's not, by far for everyone, But I enjoy it and Gimmie a crack faced 90 Year old Man or Woman anytime...LOL why? Again because I enjoy shooting them and since not to many others do. It works for me and my Niche. A downward trend in sales for some I don't think is related as there are folks submitting that are first class shooters and VERY first class commercial stock shooters that you have never heard of because they don't post. Also..Besides, What I consider A bad Numbers month for me, Might be a Huge BME for someone else. It's all relative.
Before the search Change or whatever . it was mid March 2013, Every month was a Best ever, The majority saw growth and motivation was high.. Now, every month is a worst ever or close to it On All The sites im with. Is it because I change Backgrounds? submit B&W also? I don't think so and gotta call crap. Im doing what has worked for me for 9 years and now it doesn't, If what I do Had "never" worked I wouldn't be here, Simple as that.Enjoy what it is ,while it lasts.
-
.
-
You do have some points there Laurin. I think maybe one must have been involved in Microstock for say five, six years in order to really notice the difference in earnings and so on. many who has only been at it for a couple of years have nothing to compare with. :)
-
My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white, submitting also a color version on black. Its still the same image. Its just bloating a portfolio. Quantity over quality.
I dont have those stats, agree, because I dont feel the need to bloat my portfolio just yet.
-
My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white, submitting also a color version on black. Its still the same image. Its just bloating a portfolio. Quantity over quality.
I dont have those stats, agree, because I dont feel the need to bloat my portfolio just yet.
Actually, your words were "I see people complaining about sales and when I check their port I see they are submitting their old images isolated on white, but now isolated on black and in black and white. Not sure what that strategy will do for your sales."
-
I know, I wrote them myself.
-
And you don't see a contradiction?
-
In summary: The agencies don't know the value of images and neither do the image makers.
-
And you don't see a contradiction?
No, did I say I didnt write that? I just clarified the point I tried to make. How is that contradicting.
-
And you don't see a contradiction?
No, did I say I didnt write that? I just clarified the point I tried to make. How is that contradicting.
You said after "My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white" when in fact your original statement was about both. Yes, contradictory.
-
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.
If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.
Unless the search is hand picked.
-
And you don't see a contradiction?
No, did I say I didnt write that? I just clarified the point I tried to make. How is that contradicting.
You said after "My point wasnt about BW but about a color image on white" when in fact your original statement was about both. Yes, contradictory.
I know what I wrote, honestly I do, I clarified the point I want to make. Its not contradicting, its clarifying.
-
I don't care enough to continue. You win. Enjoy.
-
I don't care enough to continue. You win. Enjoy.
I win what??? You started the crusade. I am defending myself against you, its not the other way around. Seriously, for me it wasnt even about winning, for you apparently it was.
-
I don't care enough to continue. You win. Enjoy.
Seriously, for me it wasnt even about winning, for you apparently it was.
No, actually it wasn't. But you like to argue in the forums and I generally don't. To you its a clarification, to me its two statements that contradict each other. I won't be able to convince you otherwise. Therefore, no point in continuing.
-
I am flabbergasted, you started the argument. I explain to you what I meant, and you dont accept my explanation. I am not going to say you are right, when I what I say is what I mean. I am completely lost here.
-
I am flabbergasted, you started the argument. I explain to you what I meant, and you dont accept my explanation. I am not going to say you are right, when I what I say is what I mean. I am completely lost here.
You didn't explain. Your argument was "I know what I wrote". Seriously, I was pointing something out that stood out to me. You replied, so did I. We disagree. Enough said.
-
My own fault for sticking my oar into something that has nothing to do with me. Please someone put this back on topic.
-
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.
If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.
Unless the search is hand picked.
I agree content should be stired up.
However the micros can easily stir up content without penalizing the very people who helped them build their business. I take issue with the "increased percentage" of low cost files they are serving buyers over proven NEW HCV content that in now being pushed to the back of searches because they have to pay more for that content in contributor royalties.
Take notice the next time a quarterly report comes out, every quarter "Return Per Download" goes up and they proudly display this to stock holders and analyst.
-
Thanks for the bounty of negative votes Luissantos84 and Ron ;) I trust I can count on many from you in the future.
-
Thanks for the bounty of negative votes Luissantos84 and Ron ;) I trust I can count on many from you in the future.
my pleasure! ah you can always explain how low cost content has better search placement, or maybe don't, that is fine!
-
Clearly you do not read my reply's or you would know I did put your request into my originally intended and not twisted context a page back.
It is a waste of time entertaining any of your questions because you both make up facts to fit the business scenario you wish and hope will play out long term. I would have thought many here would have learned from both Fotolia's and IS's treatment. It is time to let the sites know we are not happy with their treatment of our assets. It never helps any of us by ignoring the reality of the situation because we wish things were different.
It has become clear that it does not matter how many of us tell you that our sales have dropped drastically since March and that our new images are not showing up in searches. You have chosen to believe your own truth despite the facts offered.
As an example, I have posted the below snip directly out of Jon and key managements mouths and the comments have gone unread. Despite posting the snip multiple times in various threads on this forum; Ron still makes up his own facts in defiance of clear evidence that his comment is not factual.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/s-j-locke-uploading-to-shutterstock/msg362228/#msg362228 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/s-j-locke-uploading-to-shutterstock/msg362228/#msg362228)
Once sold 5 ELs in one day at IS, for over $500 total, back in the good old days...BDE.
Used to get regular $300 days at iS in 2010 with no EL's.
Anyway back on topic Woo Yay for 38c sales.
Where have they gone then? Why blame SS for poor sales over at IS. According to Bunhill IS is cheaper then SS.
Straight from the SS founders mouth "If you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. "
Snip
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 then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
[url]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[/url] ([url]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[/url])
-
come on guys!
-
come on guys!
Seriously, it is like watching 8 year olds in the schoolyard. :-\
-
I vote we bring duelling back.
-
Back to the OPs question. Yes they know. Most agencies are very attune to what it costs in terms of talent, skills, cost, etc. they know * well. They real question should be do they care? All I can say is that profits trump caring, at least in microstock. But knowing this we still feed the beast, so we have some accountability.
-
So, gbalex, you're theory is that it's not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search? In other words, an image gets buried if it pays 38 cents? I just want clarification on that point.
Also, would you link your port on Shutterstock? It's difficult to have a discussion without some context.
-
come on guys!
Seriously, it is like watching 8 year olds in the schoolyard. :-\
welcome to Microstockgroup the forum for "professional" microstock photographers. i thing you might be a bit forgiving in your demographic, it's more like 5 year old's in the schoolyard/sandbox.
-
So, gbalex, you're theory is that it's not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search? In other words, an image gets buried if it pays 38 cents? I just want clarification on that point.
Do you Shutterstock cheerleaders ever read or do you just make things up to prove your false shot gun assumptions. Lets be clear I DO NOT and never did have a theory that it is not possible for a new file by a contributor on Shutterstock's top tier to reach the front of a search?
The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.
Historically the SS search was based on the merit of individual content. Or in other words the buyers chose which images would be successful and which would sink to the bottom rankings.
If the search is not regularly given a stir and new content is not promoted then the front page will stay the same and very little else will ever sell. Because content which is on the front page of any search anywhere inevitably and obviously sells better than content further back in the search. Which does not necessarily mean that it is better.
Unless the search is hand picked.
I agree content should be stirred up.
However the micros can easily stir up content without penalizing the very people who helped them build their business. I take issue with the "increased percentage" of low cost files they are serving buyers over proven NEW HCV content that in now being pushed to the back of searches because they have to pay more for that content in contributor royalties.
Take notice the next time a quarterly report comes out, every quarter "Return Per Download" goes up and they proudly display this to stock holders and analyst.
As for the search: It is simplistic to think in an "either or scenario in regard to cost of files". The search is not one dimensional it changes over time. It looks to be based on Hierarchies: Tiers of attributes, such as year > month > date, or Continent > Country > City, e.g. your “country” would be “Europe.Spain”, and your “city” field would be “Europe.Spain.Madrid” — so there’d be no mixing of Madrid, Alabama in your results when filtering or faceting by city.
Some more complex units of measurement might be the total number of dollars spent after a user performed a given search or the age of individual files or contributor accounts – search changes are constant and look to be spanning the age of the entire image database dataset so their search serves ever changing multidimensional data sets from the image database based on what type of return per download they are seeking at any given moment.
With the goal of returning higher Return Per Download to stockholders it is not surprising to see the dataset mix change or evolve to a higher percentage of low cost files being added to the most popular search. Hence the drops some of us are seeing.
-
A submitter from 2005 posted yesterday he made 500 dollar in two days making Jan 2014 almost BME.
Another submitter from 2007 reported BME
Two submitters from 2010 (38c level) Reported BME.
And more...
-
The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.
how do you know that files selling "now" are low cost? do you contact the photographers? if the low cost files are the new trend why don't you do some of those instead of bitching around all the time ;)
-
The key words are ""increased percentage of low cost files mixed into the most popular search" I have already explained this in detail twice in this thread.
how do you know that files selling "now" are low cost? do you contact the photographers? if the low cost files are the new trend why don't you do some of those instead of bitching around all the time ;)
He means low cost to SS. SS is pushing 25 cent images in front of 38 cent images to increase the Revenue per download for SS. They need to do this for the shareholders and thats why long time contributors see a drop in sales.
Plus SS has said numerous times they arent increasing the pricing of the images to gain market share. So thats why we wont see a raise.
The only thing he can prove is that SS wont increase the pricing of the images, the other theory that 25 cent images are pushed up is just that, a theory.
Disclaimer: all of that is not my opinion, but what I understand from Gbalex' comments.
-
It's a theory that doesn't hold water because he knows I can prove otherwise, so now he hedges his theory with ''increasesd percentage''. So now, in order for his theory to be true, we must accept that Shutterstock is picking some 38 cent contributors over other 38 cent contributors.
We're not going to see a raise because there's no other site out there that pays most contributors as much as Shutterstock does. The real value of our assets is what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. And Shutterstock's customers pay me 10 times more for my assets than any other site.
-
I vote we bring duelling back.
I take it back. The protagonists would probably spend an hour shrilly arguing over some finer point of duelling etiquette - and end up being shot by their own seconds.
-
Increased profit per download can easily come from Ods and singles. They for sure have increased my RPD.
win- win
-
It's a theory that doesn't hold water because he knows I can prove otherwise, so now he hedges his theory with ''increasesd percentage''. So now, in order for his theory to be true, we must accept that Shutterstock is picking some 38 cent contributors over other 38 cent contributors.
We're not going to see a raise because there's no other site out there that pays most contributors as much as Shutterstock does. The real value of our assets is what people are willing to pay for them. No more, no less. And Shutterstock's customers pay me 10 times more for my assets than any other site.
The only thing you have proven is that you either can not read or choose not to.
If you will notice I quoted two instances of posts that I made long before YOU made up your theory and attributed it to me.
I am done entertaining this group of Shutterstock cheerleaders who behave like a gang of hyenas. I have had more than a few private messages from folks who can and do actual read and agree with me. They choose not to subject themselves to these types of defamatory personal attacks.
-
Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be to you in a way that is totally unrelated to the forum. Nobody has done that. You're playing the victim without cause.