Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 16, 2015, 15:18

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.

Quote from: tickstock on April 16, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 16, 2015, 15:07

Quote from: tickstock on April 16, 2015, 15:03

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 16, 2015, 15:01

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 MICROstock�and specifically SS, which is the big earner for most people�is 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.

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 16, 2015, 15:07

Quote from: tickstock on April 16, 2015, 15:03

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 16, 2015, 15:01

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 MICROstock�and specifically SS, which is the big earner for most people�is 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.

Quote from: pancaketom on April 16, 2015, 16:16

Quote from: tickstock on April 16, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 16, 2015, 15:07

Quote from: tickstock on April 16, 2015, 15:03

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 16, 2015, 15:01

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 MICROstock�and specifically SS, which is the big earner for most people�is 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.

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.

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 17, 2015, 02:14

I had a shock this morning when I discovered no one is forcing me to upload to Shutterstock.......

Exactly

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 17, 2015, 15:33

... 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...

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 16, 2015, 08:13

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...

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.

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 18, 2015, 08:15

Quote from: K2 on April 18, 2015, 06:41

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 16, 2015, 08:13

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.