MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I love Shutterstock!!  (Read 18048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

K2

« on: April 16, 2015, 07:55 »
+18
Oh my god SS is so great! I LOVE watching my total earnings increase pennies at a time. It's so gratifying and like I totally see how good subs are for contributors. The more subs I get the more I want to submit my best work!!! Whooooo hooooooo!!!!! Thanks Mr. Oringer!!!!


« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2015, 08:13 »
+2
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2015, 08:23 »
+3
Oh my god SS is so great! I LOVE watching my total earnings increase pennies at a time. It's so gratifying and like I totally see how good subs are for contributors. The more subs I get the more I want to submit my best work!!! Whooooo hooooooo!!!!! Thanks Mr. Oringer!!!!

Mike?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2015, 08:24 »
+1
I think they paid out $80 million dollars to contributors last year. How many cents is that?
Depends on who it goes to really.

shudderstok

« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2015, 09:29 »
+1
keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2015, 11:17 »
+9
Ad agencies pay much higher rates.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2015, 11:35 »
+2
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.

shudderstok

« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2015, 11:43 »
+11
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.

no contradictions here. just saying keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 for letting your work sell for advertising. if you are happy with it then great, you too can see your account grow pennies at a time. exciting times indeed.
oh right i keep forgetting the ODDs that occasionally come by, that totally justifies making pennies.

« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2015, 11:49 »
0
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100? 

« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2015, 11:55 »
0
It love it too!!

And i love this forum too!!

« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2015, 12:27 »
0
oh right i keep forgetting the ODDs that occasionally come by, that totally justifies making pennies.

even that has sort of gone with the wind coming from that hole at the bum ;D

Uncle Pete

« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2015, 12:36 »
+2
Which one SS or IS? I'm happy with both. Happily limited independent.

Reminder I only work those two agencies, and they both produce acceptable results for my personal expectations.

Lets see, IS sub I get 28c, on TS = 28c, and there's no raise or hope for getting any more EVER! as an Independent. I'm quite please with the recent 2015 Credit Sales on IS...

SS I get more than that and haven't gotten 25c since 2008, got an earned raise again after that, and another... plus the standard ODD on SS is a dollar more than I get for an average credit sale on IS.

But I'm still happy with both, even if SS earns me three to four times more - bottom line dollars - a month than IS. There's your answer. Not some irrelevant RPI or RPD which only counts in my images vs my images.

You and shudder are part of a dying minority. Maybe you should consider that you aren't just defending your loyalty (which I admire) but stubbornly refusing to see that you're shorting your own income, by stubbornly sticking with an out of date plan, which has limited growth potential, if any, vs other options.

You can either advance or retreat, there is no standing still. Are your earnings growing, and showing continuing potential, as an IS exclusive? Mine are as an Independent. There's your answer.


Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100?

« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2015, 13:11 »
+2
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.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2015, 13:25 »
+1
Pointless to continue. Ask the people who left Exclusive at IS, not me. Up until recently I would have said Exclusive IS was a good plan because of the higher sales and commissions and opportunities for earnings. For people with the right kind of stock materials.

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.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 16:58 by Uncle Pete »

Shelma1

« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2015, 14:12 »
+9
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100?

Where? My RPD is now lower on iS than on SS. SS blew past iS a while agoundoubtedly because SS pays independents royalties 50% higher than iS does. Also, I've never earned anywhere near $100 for a sale on iS, but have several in that ballpark on SS. I got two a just couple of days ago. On iS? Bupkis.

« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2015, 14:15 »
-6
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100?

Where? My RPD is now lower on iS than on SS. SS blew past iS a while agoundoubtedly because SS pays independents royalties 50% higher than iS does. Also, I've never earned anywhere near $100 for a sale on iS, but have several in that ballpark on SS. I got two a just couple of days ago. On iS? Bupkis.
I've never advocated that anyone should contribute to SS or iStock as an independent.  They both are way too low for me.  The point was that a few hundred dollar sales per month doesn't change RPD much at all.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 14:24 by tickstock »

« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2015, 14:40 »
+5
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100?

Where? My RPD is now lower on iS than on SS. SS blew past iS a while agoundoubtedly because SS pays independents royalties 50% higher than iS does. Also, I've never earned anywhere near $100 for a sale on iS, but have several in that ballpark on SS. I got two a just couple of days ago. On iS? Bupkis.
I've never advocated that anyone should contribute to SS or iStock as an independent.  They both are way too low for me.  The point was that a few hundred dollar sales per month doesn't change RPD much at all.

I suppose this is true if your only concern is RPD. I'd argue that most people care more about the size of their payment at the end of the month much more than they care about RPD.

Averaging $10 per sale would be great but not if it means only having 5 downloads per month. RPD isn't really that important IMHO.

Personally, my RPD at SS has always been closer to $100 than to $0.38 compared to my RPD at Istock.  8)


« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2015, 14:43 »
-4
Where on your home site I could get 28 cents for a sub? Keep pointing out how many contradictions there are in your hate for SS. ODDs can range over $100 does your place do that for Independent Artists?

keep at it, soon you will make 0.38 to have your image used in and advertising campaign.
Is your RPD closer to 38 cents or $100?

Where? My RPD is now lower on iS than on SS. SS blew past iS a while agoundoubtedly because SS pays independents royalties 50% higher than iS does. Also, I've never earned anywhere near $100 for a sale on iS, but have several in that ballpark on SS. I got two a just couple of days ago. On iS? Bupkis.
I've never advocated that anyone should contribute to SS or iStock as an independent.  They both are way too low for me.  The point was that a few hundred dollar sales per month doesn't change RPD much at all.

I suppose this is true if your only concern is RPD. I'd argue that most people care more about the size of their payment at the end of the month much more than they care about RPD.

Averaging $10 per sale would be great but not if it means only having 5 downloads per month. RPD isn't really that important IMHO.

Personally, my RPD at SS has always been closer to $100 than to $0.38 compared to my RPD at Istock.  8)
You could say RPI as well or just look at the totals at the end of the month, any way you slice it having 2 or 3 $100 dollar sales per month doesn't change things very much at all and reading the threads on here I doubt most people get 2 or 3 of them every month.

Shelma1

« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2015, 15:01 »
+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.

« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2015, 15:03 »
-6
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?

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2015, 15:07 »
+8
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?

« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2015, 15:11 »
-2
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2015, 15:18 »
+8
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.




« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2015, 15:23 »
+1
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.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2015, 15:31 »
+6
Have to agree GB and I'll be interested to see how the changes at Adobe/FT eventuallychange the game as well. New leadership at IS, and now the 350 a month plan on SS that replaced the 750 a month plan.

Instability and change seems to be the only constants.  :o

Once I argued for the term "big six" because they were so close. Now I'm personally looking at the Big Three.

Lets give it a year and see? Meet me here, tax day 2016.  ;D

Pointless to continue. Ask the people who left Exclusive at IS, not me. Up until recently I would have said Exclusive IS was a good plan because of the higher sales and commissions and opportunities for earnings. For people with the right kind of stock materials.

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.
I would not be at all surprise to see the answer from former exclusives change over the next 6 months to a year. Their response could be very different from the answers you would receive, if you asked today.

Once everyone has followed the carrot and jumped ship, Jon's Wallstreet friends are very likely to change up the algorithm.

My guess would be a future search, biased toward emerging markets. The new dangling carrot.

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.

« Reply #50 on: April 18, 2015, 10:26 »
+8
Quote - Time was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years.

There was also a time not so long ago on these boards when IS exclusives were not accused of being macro contributors.

It is baffling to me that so many here miss the fact that shutterstocks downward pressure has affected the entire market in a huge way. If you don't raise prices for 9 years to gain market share it takes it's toll on your competitors.  In the end IS was forced to drop prices and adopt subs.

« Reply #51 on: April 18, 2015, 11:00 »
+5
Quote - Time was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years.

There was also a time not so long ago on these boards when IS exclusives were not accused of being macro contributors.

It is baffling to me that so many here miss the fact that shutterstocks downward pressure has affected the entire market in a huge way. If you don't raise prices for 9 years to gain market share it takes it's toll on your competitors.  In the end IS was forced to drop prices and adopt subs.

That's what I am saying, too. Well said.  You cannot reverse the sub model into a non-sub model because all agencies would have to agree to that. As long as these agencies keep competing on price, subs will become cheaper and cheaper until this is a game to make my month is merely for beer money.

Shelma1

« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2015, 12:05 »
+9
Quote - Time was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years.

There was also a time not so long ago on these boards when IS exclusives were not accused of being macro contributors.

It is baffling to me that so many here miss the fact that shutterstocks downward pressure has affected the entire market in a huge way. If you don't raise prices for 9 years to gain market share it takes it's toll on your competitors.  In the end IS was forced to drop prices and adopt subs.

iS has dropped prices and adopted subs and they're still going downhill. In fact, their prices are lower than SS's now. So why aren't they taking over the market?

Stocksy proved people are willing to pay more for quality images. iS could have taken any number of paths. And they were already offering subs through the PP.

They make wholesale changes without any evidence it will increase sales. Adding subs. Raising prices for buyers who liked buying small sizes, losing who knows how many customers. Eliminating image descriptions, asking contributors to take time away from creating new/better images and using their time to rewrite invisible descriptions instead. And being consistently behind the curve in what sorts of images they'll accept ("don't tell us images we've rejected are selling well elsewhere!"). I could go on.

Misstep after misstep. That's nobody's fault but theirs.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 12:45 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2015, 13:47 »
+1
Re IS - On many levels I agree with you, however I also firmly believe Shutterstock's business strategy has taken its toll overall.

Surely Shutterstock could have competed using many other methods in lieu of downward pricing to capture market share. As you mentioned Stocksy was able to do this and they had a substantially later start than Shutterstock.

Defend cheap, easily implemented and predatory business strategies all you want; in the end they are detrimental to all of our bottom lines. By defending pathetic business tactics we are slitting our own throats.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 13:54 by gbalex »

« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2015, 13:49 »
+1
duplicate

shudderstok

« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2015, 14:09 »
+6
Re IS - On many levels I agree with you, however I also firmly believe Shutterstock's business strategy has taken its toll overall.

Surely Shutterstock could have competed using many other methods in lieu of downward pricing to capture market share. As you mentioned Stocksy was able to do this and they had a substantially later start than Shutterstock.

Defend cheap, easily implemented and predatory business strategies all you want; in the end they are detrimental to all of our bottom lines. By defending pathetic business tactics we are slitting our own throats.

BINGO!


« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2015, 15:03 »
+1
Re IS - On many levels I agree with you, however I also firmly believe Shutterstock's business strategy has taken its toll overall.

Surely Shutterstock could have competed using many other methods in lieu of downward pricing to capture market share. As you mentioned Stocksy was able to do this and they had a substantially later start than Shutterstock.

Defend cheap, easily implemented and predatory business strategies all you want; in the end they are detrimental to all of our bottom lines. By defending pathetic business tactics we are slitting our own throats.

in spite of agreeing with you for the general benefit of all contributors i would not go so  far as to say Stocksy because they still seem to be the trendy bubble drink new kid on the block.
i think Veers or even Alamy or GL ...used to be that too, and now see where they are.
it's too soon to cheer for Stocksy just yet... moreoever they are not the one size fit all alternative to ss or what used to be is.
i used to think canstock was a good one where the owner was sincere , or that one with Elena...
or even John of Cutcaster. but sadly none of them had the market network of ss and is .


« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2015, 16:16 »
+2
Oh my god SS is so great! I LOVE watching my total earnings increase pennies at a time. It's so gratifying and like I totally see how good subs are for contributors. The more subs I get the more I want to submit my best work!!! Whooooo hooooooo!!!!! Thanks Mr. Oringer!!!!

IMO, you're spot on (despite the criticism you -- unsurprisingly -- received here; see Mark Twain above, as quoted by my "almost name-compatriot" up there, he's spot on, too).

To be brief, I am myself at a loss for words about SS' policies -- in total stuttershock here ;)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 16:22 by stuttershock »

« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2015, 16:19 »
0
[dupe too -- why is this hanging...]

« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2015, 21:04 »
+1
Just had to compliment your alias Stuttershock.  Well chosen.

K2

« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2015, 21:43 »
-2
By saying this is just a hobby for you, you automatically render your justifications for subs mute. I know that some of you wanted to make this your living...you know who you are. You're comments on other forums are not forgotten. Don't give the easy excuse.."oh this is just a hobby." What that really means is that you failed to make microstock your living. That way of thinking is one of the reasons why corporations like SS can take advantage of us.

« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2015, 23:46 »
+3
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.

That's the truth - whether people like it or not.

« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2015, 00:32 »
+6
By saying this is just a hobby for you, you automatically render your justifications for subs mute. I know that some of you wanted to make this your living...you know who you are. You're comments on other forums are not forgotten. Don't give the easy excuse.."oh this is just a hobby." What that really means is that you failed to make microstock your living. That way of thinking is one of the reasons why corporations like SS can take advantage of us.

By using the word "mute" when you meant "moot" you render your comment annoyingly funny.   ::)

edit:
Anyone who thought it was a good idea to have a single source of income for their living was setting themselves up for a shock. Particularly as the basis for the income was a crowd sourced model based on technology that is becoming cheaper and more ubiquitous all the time. Maybe those who wanted to make this their living just clued in to how the industry actually works.
Career advice, if microstock is your only source of income, you need to diversify. Shoot assignments or weddings if you have that desire. Otherwise, the 'hobbyists" who don't have your need for maximizing the price point on image licenses are going to cause you pain. You are a typewriter specialist in the age of computers.

It isn't "good" or "bad", just the reality of the industry.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 01:30 by Copidosoma »

« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2015, 20:31 »
-3
yes, me too... even love the stupid capcha with frigging pictures. as if the illegible words were not bad enough...whose twisted idea is this???

« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2015, 13:19 »
+3
yes, me too... even love the stupid capcha with frigging pictures. as if the illegible words were not bad enough...whose twisted idea is this???

they (the captcha people) are trying to figure out how to determine if a user is a real person in new and sometimes annoying ways. One is to monitor how you move the mouse (notice that you can't tab to the "I am a real person" check box). I wonder if SS pays them to annoy us or if they pay SS for that honor.

re: SS and IS, it always seemed like IS and FT were leading the screw the contributor charge with <20% to the artists. SS was clever, stingy, greedy (you name it) enough to start out with about 30% to the artist when many other sites were at 50%. At least they haven't substantially reduced it (perhaps until now).

« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2015, 13:33 »
+2

they (the captcha people) are trying to figure out how to determine if a user is a real person in new and sometimes annoying ways. One is to monitor how you move the mouse (notice that you can't tab to the "I am a real person" check box). I wonder if SS pays them to annoy us or if they pay SS for that honor.

i would say either way they are both totally effed-up minds!!!
it reminds me of those twisted politicians and security minds that penalize the majority good innocent people to introduce all sorts of irritations into the system just because of a twisted minority.
that's so typical isn't it???

« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2015, 03:58 »
0
38c??!!

Sky high for me, I'm still at 25c....


« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2015, 11:10 »
+9
SS is imperfect. Fact. Yet they've made it possible for me to afford any photo equipment I desire in my retirement years, something that would otherwise not be possible. In contrast to assignment work, I'm free to follow my nose and cover any subject I wish. I have no AD looking over my shoulder. Only a reviewer who, once-in-a-while may turn out to be an abject idiot . . . but not too often.

I read books on my Kindle and don't pay nearly what I used to for hard covers or even paperbacks. I enjoy all the music I can absorb for free. These are all 21st Century phenomena linked to computers and the internet. The graphic arts are no different than the entire arts field. To have expectations based on 20th Century practices is, to me, not realistic.

Some photographers will not lament the passing of the old business model. They will invent a new one.

That said, hey Shutterstock, how about increasing the 38 cents per by a few pennies!

« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2015, 13:27 »
+2
I read books on my Kindle and don't pay nearly what I used to for hard covers or even paperbacks. I enjoy all the music I can absorb for free. These are all 21st Century phenomena linked to computers and the internet. The graphic arts are no different than the entire arts field. To have expectations based on 20th Century practices is, to me, not realistic.

Some photographers will not lament the passing of the old business model. They will invent a new one.

That said, hey Shutterstock, how about increasing the 38 cents per by a few pennies!

yes, but that 21 C phenomena is not free as you say...
it is at someone's expense ie the author, the composer,.. the contributor...
because instead of earning 19 C wages for their work like we used to do,
we have to adapt to settle for not even $1 when a cup of coffee costs a lot more than what we earn for each photo, music, book,.. we publish.
and the only millionaires are the dudes from fb, ss, etc...

it is not something to celebrate , is it?  we all used to have books and vinyls ... organic stuff to hold and read and listen... where we paid the author and musician fair wage because we too earned a fair wage with say $150 for a 5 pix page of photo essay in a local papers in 1988.

how much do you have to make images to earn that much i made in one visit to the papers in 1988...and for that, i was a student photographer and i too had money to buy a nik F and shot 5 rolls of kodachrome a sunday???

Batman

« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2015, 18:54 »
+7
I had a shock this morning when I discovered no one is forcing me to upload to Shutterstock.......

But IS is forcing me to sell on PP, TS and subs, no opt out. I joined SS knowing they sell subs. I joined IS with canisters, no subs.


 

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