pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I love Shutterstock!!  (Read 18046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2015, 15:32 »
+2
I agree with Shelma, why are anonymous macro stockers here on a micro stock forum to rant about OUR low royalties when they are not even part of that market.
It's all the same market.  DPC, Bigstock Video, etc.. effect all of us even if we aren't on those sites.  It appears that a lot of other people agree with the OP that subs aren't a good thing.
I have no problem with subs at all. Still its weird that some people claim to have BMEs on their macro sites yet  come here to complain subs are damaging their business. Apparently not so much then. Getty is still No1 in selling photos. If all buyers go for subs, Getty wouldnt be No1. Also, some buyers dont want to pay through the nose for a websize image at Getty so they go to a micro site. Getty obviously doesnt want that clientle. Those buyers are even called free loaders. Great, they make me a free loading grand per month. Getty didnt want me, microstock does.

I wonder what the people on the Getty forum would say if I came there complaining about Getty without even being a contributor there? (I know I dont have access anyway, but thats not the point).


Shelma1

« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2015, 15:32 »
+15
What I don't get is the continued sarcasm directed at SS specifically. iS pays lowers royalties to independents. I only get 28 for subs sales at iS.

As I've pointed out before, most of us can't be represented by Getty, and microstock opened up new markets and broader representation. Why MACRO photographers come to MICROstock Group and continually post jabs at MICROstockand specifically SS, which is the big earner for most peopleis beyond me.
You don't see any sarcasm directed at iStock, you're one of the main purveyors of that sort of thing.  I think people can dislike both companies why does anyone have to like one or other?

Why are you here? Seriously. This is Microstock Group. And I'm sarcastic about iS because I wish they'd do better. When they screw up it costs me money. You?
I'm here because I do this for my living, it's important to me what happens not only on iStock but in the industry as a whole.

What is your goal? Are you hoping to convince 65,000 people they shouldn't license their work online so you can hopefully make more money? Do you think that will ever happen?

I know a lot of photographers who shoot custom work who are just as angry at people who are represented by the likes of Corbis and Getty because stock imagery cuts into their business. I remember when art directors spent 10 minutes scribbling a layout and then it was all about getting in touch with reps and looking at portfolios and hiring photographers and going on shoots and looking at contact sheets with a loupe. Then you hired retouchers and marked up their work with a wax pencil. I remember lightboxes and yummy catered weekly lunches when photographer's reps would come in to shop portfolios around. Art directors had promotional photography postcards (usually of naked women) plastered all over the walls of their window offices. Now we buy our own lunches and work in "open space." No more postcards. No more window offices. No more walls.

Things change.

« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2015, 15:40 »
-4
What I don't get is the continued sarcasm directed at SS specifically. iS pays lowers royalties to independents. I only get 28 for subs sales at iS.

As I've pointed out before, most of us can't be represented by Getty, and microstock opened up new markets and broader representation. Why MACRO photographers come to MICROstock Group and continually post jabs at MICROstockand specifically SS, which is the big earner for most peopleis beyond me.
You don't see any sarcasm directed at iStock, you're one of the main purveyors of that sort of thing.  I think people can dislike both companies why does anyone have to like one or other?

Why are you here? Seriously. This is Microstock Group. And I'm sarcastic about iS because I wish they'd do better. When they screw up it costs me money. You?
I'm here because I do this for my living, it's important to me what happens not only on iStock but in the industry as a whole.

What is your goal? Are you hoping to convince 65,000 people they shouldn't license their work online so you can hopefully make more money? Do you think that will ever happen?

I know a lot of photographers who shoot custom work who are just as angry at people who are represented by the likes of Corbis and Getty because stock imagery cuts into their business. I remember when art directors spent 10 minutes scribbling a layout and then it was all about getting in touch with reps and looking at portfolios and hiring photographers and going on shoots and looking at contact sheets with a loupe. Then you hired retouchers and marked up their work with a wax pencil. I remember lightboxes and yummy catered weekly lunches when photographer's reps would come in to shop portfolios around. Art directors had promotional photography postcards (usually of naked women) plastered all over the walls of their window offices. Now we buy our own lunches and work in "open space." No more postcards. No more window offices. No more walls.

Things change.
I'm not a macro shooter but I agree, things change.  That's pretty much all I've said on this thread, expect that things are going to change more at SS.  There's really no need to get so defensive about it.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 15:42 by tickstock »

ultimagina

« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2015, 16:05 »
+11
I don't understand why some try to convince IS exclusives that SS is better.
Let them "enjoy" their exclusivity!

Without them, we will enjoy less competition and better sales!



« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2015, 16:16 »
+7
What I don't get is the continued sarcasm directed at SS specifically. iS pays lowers royalties to independents. I only get 28 for subs sales at iS.

As I've pointed out before, most of us can't be represented by Getty, and microstock opened up new markets and broader representation. Why MACRO photographers come to MICROstock Group and continually post jabs at MICROstockand specifically SS, which is the big earner for most peopleis beyond me.
You don't see any sarcasm directed at iStock, you're one of the main purveyors of that sort of thing.  I think people can dislike both companies why does anyone have to like one or other?

Why are you here? Seriously. This is Microstock Group. And I'm sarcastic about iS because I wish they'd do better. When they screw up it costs me money. You?
I'm here because I do this for my living, it's important to me what happens not only on iStock but in the industry as a whole.

how can I make a living slagging SS on microstock group?

« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2015, 16:36 »
-4
What I don't get is the continued sarcasm directed at SS specifically. iS pays lowers royalties to independents. I only get 28 for subs sales at iS.

As I've pointed out before, most of us can't be represented by Getty, and microstock opened up new markets and broader representation. Why MACRO photographers come to MICROstock Group and continually post jabs at MICROstockand specifically SS, which is the big earner for most peopleis beyond me.
You don't see any sarcasm directed at iStock, you're one of the main purveyors of that sort of thing.  I think people can dislike both companies why does anyone have to like one or other?

Why are you here? Seriously. This is Microstock Group. And I'm sarcastic about iS because I wish they'd do better. When they screw up it costs me money. You?
I'm here because I do this for my living, it's important to me what happens not only on iStock but in the industry as a whole.

how can I make a living slagging SS on microstock group?
I didn't think I was slagging them.  I was asked why I was on this site, the reason is because I'm interested in what's going on with the industry.  If you don't like my opinions you can ignore me, in fact I would prefer for you to do that. 

No Free Lunch

« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2015, 16:52 »
+1
What I don't get is the continued sarcasm directed at SS specifically. iS pays lowers royalties to independents. I only get 28 for subs sales at iS.

As I've pointed out before, most of us can't be represented by Getty, and microstock opened up new markets and broader representation. Why MACRO photographers come to MICROstock Group and continually post jabs at MICROstockand specifically SS, which is the big earner for most peopleis beyond me.
You don't see any sarcasm directed at iStock, you're one of the main purveyors of that sort of thing.  I think people can dislike both companies why does anyone have to like one or other?

Why are you here? Seriously. This is Microstock Group. And I'm sarcastic about iS because I wish they'd do better. When they screw up it costs me money. You?
I'm here because I do this for my living, it's important to me what happens not only on iStock but in the industry as a whole.

how can I make a living slagging SS on microstock group?
I didn't think I was slagging them.  I was asked why I was on this site, the reason is because I'm interested in what's going on with the industry.  If you don't like my opinions you can ignore me, in fact I would prefer for you to do that.

Have you ever thought about selling 'Used Cars'? You would do well  8)



« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2015, 16:53 »
+1
Have you ever thought about selling 'Used Cars'? You would do well  8)
Nope, I'm pretty happy taking pictures for a living.

« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2015, 02:14 »
+12
I had a shock this morning when I discovered no one is forcing me to upload to Shutterstock.......

« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2015, 15:02 »
+3
I had a shock this morning when I discovered no one is forcing me to upload to Shutterstock.......


Exactly

« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2015, 15:33 »
+3
I wouldn't be surprised to see you change your attitude about SS in the next year, things are changing there for the first time basically since SS began.

Could be. TIme was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years. At least SS has been consistent for a decade, as for what the future holds - I've really no idea other than that my microstock earnings are likely to continue to erode. Fortunately, they are not as important to me now as they once were but it's likely to get very tough for anybody hoping to rely on them for the next 10 years.

« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2015, 15:47 »
+3
... it's likely to get very tough for anybody hoping to rely on them for the next 10 years.

I would be surprised to see someone does...

« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2015, 16:18 »
+3
I had a shock this morning when I discovered no one is forcing me to upload to Shutterstock.......
Exactly

i think it's called the stockhom syndrome or masochism :D

Semmick Photo

« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2015, 20:59 »
+3
I think when I just started I mentioned a few times the Stockholm syndrome.  I was told that I should have been there from the start. Fair enough, now, three years in, I understand what they meant, and that I am now too infected with the Stockholm syndrome. Weird as it is, I still get a kick for every image I see sold. Seeing the low $$ it also disappoints me. But I cant pull the plug, I want to get my photos downloaded. Pride is a funny thing.

« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2015, 01:34 »
+4
... it's likely to get very tough for anybody hoping to rely on them for the next 10 years.

I would be surprised to see someone does...

Thats the beauty of being non-exclusive = reduced risk. Anyone relying on any agency for more than one to two years is being optimistic. Despite the various prophecies of doom no one knows where the industry will be in five years ten years is an age in web based industry history.

K2

« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2015, 06:41 »
+1
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?

Just how can you defend subscriptions? Are you saying that you wouldn't want to earn, or deserve, more for your work? Come on...you must be on SS payroll to try and justify demeaning "royalties" with statistics that may or may not be doctored up to look good. This is not exact but with about 60,000 contributors that means the average earnings for each contributor last year was $1333. Ummm....oh yeah then there's taxes. Oh yeah and then the cost to produce images. Wait...and fees from Paypal. Maintenance for equipment... oh well you get the picture.

I guess I was naive when I signed up thinking that SS was looking to license images in a way that contributors and SS would profit together. Wrong...

Semmick Photo

« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2015, 07:29 »
0
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?

Just how can you defend subscriptions? Are you saying that you wouldn't want to earn, or deserve, more for your work? Come on...you must be on SS payroll to try and justify demeaning "royalties" with statistics that may or may not be doctored up to look good. This is not exact but with about 60,000 contributors that means the average earnings for each contributor last year was $1333. Ummm....oh yeah then there's taxes. Oh yeah and then the cost to produce images. Wait...and fees from Paypal. Maintenance for equipment... oh well you get the picture.

I guess I was naive when I signed up thinking that SS was looking to license images in a way that contributors and SS would profit together. Wrong...
it fully funded my hobby and some more


Semmick Photo

« Reply #42 on: April 18, 2015, 07:33 »
0
To be honest I never had the idea microstock was meant to be a full time job. But it became one for many.  Agencies just don't treat  it that way in my opinion.

« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2015, 07:37 »
-1
It doesn't matter what I think my pictures are worth the market decides that. If I thought I was hugely talented like some people clearly think they are I wouldn't be selling on Microstock.

Get real any business will pay just enough to their suppliers to keep them contributing. It works for my circumstances thats why I do it.


Shelma1

« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2015, 08:15 »
+1
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?

Just how can you defend subscriptions? Are you saying that you wouldn't want to earn, or deserve, more for your work? Come on...you must be on SS payroll to try and justify demeaning "royalties" with statistics that may or may not be doctored up to look good. This is not exact but with about 60,000 contributors that means the average earnings for each contributor last year was $1333. Ummm....oh yeah then there's taxes. Oh yeah and then the cost to produce images. Wait...and fees from Paypal. Maintenance for equipment... oh well you get the picture.

I guess I was naive when I signed up thinking that SS was looking to license images in a way that contributors and SS would profit together. Wrong...

 I think subs opened up new markets. people who couldn't afford stock images before now had a way to license them. They certainly opened up a new way for me to make money. I'm just not sure if ending subs would simply close off an entire market and a way for tens of thousands of people to license their work. Look what happened when iStock raised their prices for small images...they lost tons of buyers.

« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2015, 08:44 »
+12
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?

Just how can you defend subscriptions? Are you saying that you wouldn't want to earn, or deserve, more for your work? Come on...you must be on SS payroll to try and justify demeaning "royalties" with statistics that may or may not be doctored up to look good. This is not exact but with about 60,000 contributors that means the average earnings for each contributor last year was $1333. Ummm....oh yeah then there's taxes. Oh yeah and then the cost to produce images. Wait...and fees from Paypal. Maintenance for equipment... oh well you get the picture.

I guess I was naive when I signed up thinking that SS was looking to license images in a way that contributors and SS would profit together. Wrong...

 I think subs opened up new markets. people who couldn't afford stock images before now had a way to license them. They certainly opened up a new way for me to make money. I'm just not sure if ending subs would simply close off an entire market and a way for tens of thousands of people to license their work. Look what happened when iStock raised their prices for small images...they lost tons of buyers.

The root of this issue is that ALL MS agencies have conditioned buyers to these gutter prices over the last 10 or so years. From a company perspective they would all need to conspire to reverse the trend, lose revenue for substantial amounts of time until "reconditioning" is stable, and that AINT going to ever happen.  We can post (me included) what we want and theorize, but the reality is that it can only be reversed one way and that is by pulling content en masse, another unrealistic approach.  Thus we are stuck with doing our own thing. For me, I want to start selling from my own site but haven't a clue how to do that nor do I have the technical skills. I would have to hire someone to get me in a place where I could self manage, add new content etc.

Subs are killing the photo market and that's a simple conclusion to make.  The only thing we as contributors have to look forward to is more competitive positioning, which means lower commissions. Someone at SS made a conscious decision to begin impacting the contributor because they are able to. They have enough content to allow defectors and not worry.  As I've said previously, this is just the beginning.  Right now we have the reduction (for me elimination) of $28 EL commissions, and now far fewer sub downloads probably resulting from these package changes.  SS makes a lot more, we make a lot less.

Shameful.



ultimagina

« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2015, 08:47 »
0
I think subs opened up new markets. people who couldn't afford stock images before now had a way to license them. They certainly opened up a new way for me to make money. I'm just not sure if ending subs would simply close off an entire market and a way for tens of thousands of people to license their work. Look what happened when iStock raised their prices for small images...they lost tons of buyers.

Same story goes for music with subscription services like Spotify. Consumers love it. It opened up a completely new way to enjoy music. Some artists might not like when they get a 10th of a penny for a song, but virtually all of them are on it.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 08:49 by ultimagaina »

Shelma1

« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2015, 09:36 »
+1
For me, I want to start selling from my own site but haven't a clue how to do that nor do I have the technical skills. I would have to hire someone to get me in a place where I could self manage, add new content etc.

There are a few ways to sell your work on your own site without needing many technical skills. The challenge there is marketing...getting traffic to your site and making sales. And also competing against behemoths like SS and Getty, who make it easy for buyers to choose from millions of images.

« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2015, 09:48 »
+2
For me, I want to start selling from my own site but haven't a clue how to do that nor do I have the technical skills. I would have to hire someone to get me in a place where I could self manage, add new content etc.

There are a few ways to sell your work on your own site without needing many technical skills. The challenge there is marketing...getting traffic to your site and making sales. And also competing against behemoths like SS and Getty, who make it easy for buyers to choose from millions of images.


Right, which is why I've taken my sweet time doing anything about it. Your point IS the reason I've not taken the first step.

« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2015, 09:56 »
+2
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?

Just how can you defend subscriptions? Are you saying that you wouldn't want to earn, or deserve, more for your work? Come on...you must be on SS payroll to try and justify demeaning "royalties" with statistics that may or may not be doctored up to look good. This is not exact but with about 60,000 contributors that means the average earnings for each contributor last year was $1333. Ummm....oh yeah then there's taxes. Oh yeah and then the cost to produce images. Wait...and fees from Paypal. Maintenance for equipment... oh well you get the picture.

I guess I was naive when I signed up thinking that SS was looking to license images in a way that contributors and SS would profit together. Wrong...

 I think subs opened up new markets. people who couldn't afford stock images before now had a way to license them. They certainly opened up a new way for me to make money. I'm just not sure if ending subs would simply close off an entire market and a way for tens of thousands of people to license their work. Look what happened when iStock raised their prices for small images...they lost tons of buyers.

The root of this issue is that ALL MS agencies have conditioned buyers to these gutter prices over the last 10 or so years. From a company perspective they would all need to conspire to reverse the trend, lose revenue for substantial amounts of time until "reconditioning" is stable, and that AINT going to ever happen.  We can post (me included) what we want and theorize, but the reality is that it can only be reversed one way and that is by pulling content en masse, another unrealistic approach.  Thus we are stuck with doing our own thing. For me, I want to start selling from my own site but haven't a clue how to do that nor do I have the technical skills. I would have to hire someone to get me in a place where I could self manage, add new content etc.

Subs are killing the photo market and that's a simple conclusion to make.  The only thing we as contributors have to look forward to is more competitive positioning, which means lower commissions. Someone at SS made a conscious decision to begin impacting the contributor because they are able to. They have enough content to allow defectors and not worry.  As I've said previously, this is just the beginning.  Right now we have the reduction (for me elimination) of $28 EL commissions, and now far fewer sub downloads probably resulting from these package changes.  SS makes a lot more, we make a lot less.

Shameful.

Capable cameras on everyone's cell phone and cheap DSLRs in the hands of pretty well anyone who wants one are 'killing' the photo market. In the sense that it is no longer a very select few who can afford to produce high quality images.

The competition has come from thousands of new producers of essentially the same product who are willing to do so at a lower price point (because their income needs are not the same as those of a fully invested 'professional' who relies on this a sole income, not exactly their fault). Subs are a small part of the story. Eliminating them wouldn't change much.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3489 Views
Last post August 04, 2008, 03:53
by Dreamframer
20 Replies
4497 Views
Last post May 29, 2009, 06:54
by Squat
12 Replies
3196 Views
Last post April 09, 2012, 05:50
by rubyroo
105 Replies
13468 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 07:34
by ClaridgeJ
4 Replies
1680 Views
Last post January 29, 2013, 13:37
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors