MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: If shutterstock introduces exclusivity  (Read 15206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 30, 2014, 07:43 »
+1
Judging from the poll and my own earning, I think it would nearly instant kill other sites but would that be good for the industry in the long run?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2014, 07:44 »
+10
No, monopolies are seldom, if ever, a good idea for suppliers: no place to run.
It could work well in the short term, raise prices and contributor percentages, but then ...

« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2014, 08:02 »
+10

It is highly unlikely to ever happen, based on things Jon has said about exclusivity. They didn't even make it a part of Offset, and I see no reason to believe it is even a minor consideration for Shutterstock itself.

Besides, even if it did happen I don't think it would be as enticing an offer as people suspect it will be. At best they'd offer double what they pay non-exclusive artists, which still wouldn't be enough for people like me who make less than half of their income from Shutterstock.

And even for those that it did make financial sense to consider, it still would be a high-risk move going all-in with one company. I'm not sure that any company could ever offer me enough to work only with them.


« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2014, 08:59 »
+2
I'm sure it would be attractive to a lot of contributors, but it would probably make the rest of us happy seeing a lot of our competitors flock to one site.

« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2014, 09:10 »
0
I would never consider exclusivity with shutterstock, I now make more at DT & FT and even 123 is gaining on them.

« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2014, 09:27 »
+3
I would never consider exclusivity with shutterstock, I now make more at DT & FT and even 123 is gaining on them.

So the behavior of the other agencies isn't even a consideration?

« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2014, 10:30 »
+2
I think a collection of exclusive images would be interesting. So that they can really target the mid stock section of stock. It is easier to justify higher prices if the content is exclusive.

« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2014, 10:42 »
+1
I think a collection of exclusive images would be interesting. So that they can really target the mid stock section of stock. It is easier to justify higher prices if the content is exclusive.

I don't think Shutter needs exclusivity to justify their prices - judging from my SOD royalties, which are higher on average than those from any other agency, including Alamy. Nevertheless, I'd probably go for image exclusivity with my bestsellers, It's never gonna hapen, though.

« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2014, 11:07 »
+8
Unless Jon Oringer has no involvement with Shutterstock in any capacity, I don't expect to see exclusivity - artist or image - at Shutterstock (I'm excluding Offset as it's not included in the pricing plans on Shutterstock).

He's said no - often H*ll No - over and over again.

At this point, I wouldn't trust any agency with artist exclusivity, although I would consider image exclusivity as long as there wasn't a long lock in period. Things change. Agencies get purchased. Powerful companies throw their weight around - exhibit A would be Getty which has reduced royalties for photographers and musicians steadily with everything they've acquired. And that is on purpose - they control distribution to be able to control their costs as well as prices to buyers.

Shutterstock is my biggest earner and I wish they weren't. They need some serious competition. For the moment, if they can keep going after Getty's business with higher end clients, that will benefit those of us who are with Shutterstock and not with Getty (and I realize those who are still exclusive with iStock won't feel the same way).

Given Getty's track record and Jon Oringer versus Jonathan Klein, I'd go with Oringer and Shutterstock if I had to pick a single agency, but I'd go to pretty much any lengths to avoid picking a single agency again (been there before and left).

« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2014, 15:27 »
+4
A number of posts were removed from this thread.  One off topic post and one insult and the posts that went along with them.

In regards to posting stock market data for Shutterstock.  Yes it is interested and relevant but it is off topic in regards to exclusive / non-exclusive.  It can be kept to a separate thread about investing or Shutterstock stocks.

« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2014, 15:36 »
0
A number of posts were removed from this thread.  One off topic post and one insult and the posts that went along with them.

In regards to posting stock market data for Shutterstock.  Yes it is interested and relevant but it is off topic in regards to exclusive / non-exclusive.  It can be kept to a separate thread about investing or Shutterstock stocks.

Why did you remove my post? It was a direct reply to the OP's question and offered different perspectives for the case. You could have simply removed a line you didn't like.

This place desperately needs a little interaction between posters. You are making it so dry and humourless that you will just be left with the newbies asking the same old questions time and time again.

« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2014, 15:52 »
+6
You are right, your one post did have some good things to say.  I don't always feel like picking and pruning people's posts to take out the insults however.  If there is nonesense in them then it's easier just to remove the entire post.  If someone doesn't want their post removed they should leave out the insults.

Things don't get deleted however, they get moved to a hidden area.  Here is your post (without the jabs) if you'd like to copy and paste it as your own.

Judging from the poll and my own earning, I think it would nearly instant kill other sites but would that be good for the industry in the long run?

It certainly could have some positive benefits for both us and SS themselves. SS have not raised subscription prices since 2008. That's largely because they are competing with DT, FT and others who all have the same images, essentially selling the same product.  If SS had exclusive-only images then it might be able to increase prices for subscription packages and single-image sales ... and thereby increase royalties too.

As contributors the over-supply of content is our biggest current problem and also the biggest threat to our future incomes. If each agency had exclusive-only content then they would have to compete against each other for the work of the best contributors. That would be their worst nightmare (especially for the likes of FT) ... but it would almost certainly be better for contributors.

Exclusivity worked brilliantly for Istock (and their contributors) until the mothership simply became too greedy and screwed it all up.

« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2014, 16:47 »
-4
I would never consider exclusivity with shutterstock, I now make more at DT & FT and even 123 is gaining on them.

So the behavior of the other agencies isn't even a consideration?

More censorship?

I responded to the question above and posted factual information to back up why I feel the way I do about many of the agencies, including shutterstock. That is not off topic.

I also let people know why I posted factual information and explained why these facts would lead me not be choose to go exclusive with shutterstock or any other agency. 

Back to the regularly scheduled programming, the sanitation here smacks of agency protectionism.   
 

« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2014, 17:39 »
+6
I remember reading the announcement by SS regarding this and they said that their ability to provide the fastest and most accurate search results to customers is part of the secret of their success, and if they gave exclusivity to some contributors, their images must take priority in the search, and this would interfere with getting the right image to the right customer. (I hope that makes sense ... please correct me if I am wrong).

So, it is not win-win-win situation for everyone - the customers lose, SS lose and only exclusive contributors win. So its not a good idea all round.

« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2014, 18:00 »
+2
No way I would be SS exclusive. It would be good only to reduce competition in other agencies.

Tror

« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2014, 19:00 »
+4
I do not feel any loyalty for shutterstock nor do I think exclusivity would be healthy for my income on the long run.

They had been one of the first sites and they managed to screw up less than the other ones, thats about it. Yes, they bring in money, but that does not mean that this was/is done in a healthy way. Actually, I reduce my uplaods to them to not further devaluate niche material.

And I do not think they care about contributors. Basically something I need to be able to trust and compromise.

Contributors requests get ignored, may it be the awful incompetence when it comes to inspection, the lazy attitude regarding the individual opt-out for sensitive usage for those of us who do not want to bring their models in a bad situation (and consequently themselves legally), the (for some of us) terribly complicated situation to withdraw money since they are one of the last sites who refuse to offer payoneer (or whatever other payout option other than pp/skrill or sending retro papers across the globe who likely disappear on their way lol).

Why should I deepen my bond to such a site?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 19:05 by Tror »

« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2014, 22:17 »
-1
I remember reading the announcement by SS regarding this and they said that their ability to provide the fastest and most accurate search results to customers is part of the secret of their success, and if they gave exclusivity to some contributors, their images must take priority in the search, and this would interfere with getting the right image to the right customer. (I hope that makes sense ... please correct me if I am wrong).

So, it is not win-win-win situation for everyone - the customers lose, SS lose and only exclusive contributors win. So its not a good idea all round.

http://jonoringer.com/2013/01/13/why-going-exclusive-as-a-microstock-photographer-doesnt-work/
Snip

January 13, 2013
Why going exclusive as a microstock photographer doesnt work.

Shutterstock has gone through many iterations to become what it is today. I started with 30,000 of my own images and today we have a dynamic marketplace with over 20 million assets, 35,000 active contributors, and more than 550,000 customers. Today Shutterstock is the volume leader in the stock photography space, selling more than 2 images per second.

The marketplace for imagery that weve created could have gone in several directions, but weve learned a lot about both image buyers and image sellers over the past 9 years. I often get the question from buyers, sellers, investors, and press: why dont you encourage contributors to become exclusive at Shutterstock? All of our competitors that are close to our scale offer exclusivity, but we do not. The answer seems simple to us, but its complex if you arent as close as we are to the business. The bottom line is that as a microstock photographer it just doesnt make sense to be exclusive to any one agency. Here are the reasons why:

1) No longer is content the only competitive advantage, data is also a large component. To some this may not seem intuitive. We sell creative assets and at first glance one would think that having exclusive assets would be an advantage. We add over 10,000 images each day to our library of over 20 million images. Weve sold over a quarter of a billion assets over the past 9 years. We have an incredible amount of data on these downloads. We know what search leads to what image, and at this point we can practically read the users mind in 14 different languages. Shutterstock is the volume leader, and therefore we are the data leader. In several languages we use the data we have to display the best search results for any given query. We obsess over search success and if we can reduce the time it takes to get from search to download by a tenth of a second, we win that day. We iterate over and over and use whatever data we have to continuously find the best image for the customer. The best image for a given search isnt one that another agency doesnt have, its the one that will get chosen and downloaded. Out of over 20 million images, with 10,000 more each day, were likely to have the image you need. We believe that if we can get the right product to the buyer the buyer the quickest, we win in the end. Having exclusive royalty free content is of no advantage when a buyer is going to choose where to buy a photo its getting a relevant photo the quickest. To see the user of this data in action, go ahead and try a search on Shutterstock and compare it the same search on our competitors sites.

2) As a democratized marketplace, we believe in fairness. From the start I have believed that fighting for business will make Shutterstock the best product. By selling more of a contributors work, we build lasting relationships that are built on sales not contracts that tie you to your distributor. If a contributor can make more with a certain image at another agency, then they should sell that image at another agency. This attitude makes the Shutterstock marketplace stronger in the long run because we have to continuously fight for both sides of the marketplace. At Shutterstock we take nothing for granted, and we like it this way.

3) As a marketplace, in order to guarantee that the buyer gets the right photo every time they search, no photo can be more special than another. Every single image at Shutterstock will cost the same once you have bought a subscription or image pack. This is unlike any other photo marketplace.

Image marketplaces that offer exclusivity to contributors must favor certain images. The sort order of each search has to favor exclusives in order to keep the exclusive relationship. If you arent selling more images at a higher price, why will they continue to stay exclusive? Are images that are held exclusively of better quality or more relevant to the search? This isnt the metric to measure a specific search on. Are images that make the most money for the contributor or the agency the best image for a specific query? No. At Shutterstock we get to concentrate on one metric search success. While other agencies sort their search results based on maximizing revenue, we maximize on search success.

4) Since all images are royalty free, exclusivity isnt an advantage to the buyer. An exclusive image doesnt mean that the image was used less than a non-exclusive image.

At Shutterstock we have a long term view. We believe that the image the customer wants is the best search result. By keeping things simple, not favoring exclusive images, and iterating on metrics like search success, we feel like we will be more and more successful for both our buyers and our sellers over the long term.

Jon


« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2014, 00:21 »
+2
I'll do the same for you gbalex as I did for gostwyk  Here is the start of your post

I would never consider exclusivity with shutterstock, I now make more at DT & FT and even 123 is gaining on them.
So the behavior of the other agencies isn't even a consideration?
No I absolutely do look at the behavior of the other agencies. I no longer have a port at IS, I opted out of DPC and no longer upload to FT

That said lets talk about Shutterstocks behavior. They have not raised sub prices in many years and admit to doing this to gain market share.

I know that many are pinning their hopes for the future on shutterstock because they have been punished severely at other agencies. No one knows this better than Sean. However what many here would like to ignore is that shutterstock is treating a good number of the contributors who made it successful the same way IS and FT have. I know my own port has been punished in the searches and my income has dropped 60%.

It is difficult to see the reality of the situation at shutterstock when so many new comers are enjoying the new contributor bump. However it might be wise to examine just who is in control of your future if you pin your hopes on a company that is now controlled by the venture cap crowd.

I have no illusions that in the coming years they will treat new comers any differently; than they are currently treating many of the contributors who helped them become successful over the years.

At shutterstock the downward slide for many contributors started when Jon brought in outside venture capitol investors, prior to the IPO the first thing they did was make changes that would enable them to manipulate the search.

« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2014, 10:14 »
+1
Nicely done Leaf.  But you should not have to spend so much effort on editing posts separTing wheat from chaff.   If people could be adults it would be better. 

For example if people want to quote long articles and stats they found online they could just post a link to those rather than pasting the whole thing.  Isn't that proper nettiquette anyhow?

« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2014, 11:04 »
+1
Nicely done Leaf.  But you should not have to spend so much effort on editing posts separTing wheat from chaff.   If people could be adults it would be better. 

For example if people want to quote long articles and stats they found online they could just post a link to those rather than pasting the whole thing.  Isn't that proper nettiquette anyhow?

Let's not be too serious. I'm sure he's doing it with good will.


Now I barely want to upload to other agencies other than SS and iS. My images are types that do well on subscription model. This is like soft exclusivity.

« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2014, 11:07 »
-5
Over time I have found that few have the stomach or inclination to uncover the cold hard facts. Life is more pleasant when viewed through rose colored glasses.

When this site began most of the people who visited here came to discus the cold hard facts of business, many of those people have moved on for one reason or another.

When this site censored my post by removing the cold hard facts, information which took several months to gather. Documentation taken directly from the SEC & Insight Venture Partner sites, it reduced my post above to just one persons opinion, which it is not.

Granted most people do not want take the time to uncover the reality of the situation and most people will not take the time to read nor understand it. However I posted a good deal of information that is relevant and important to contributors as business people and most contributors do not have the time or inclination to do their own research or read threads about SSTK stock.

Leaf left the longer post above that Jon wrote, but removed the actual documentation that is crucial to understand just who we are dealing with, when making business decisions regarding our future.

I am sure shutterstock much prefers the censored version which leaves the false perception that Jon is still in control of shutterstock intact.

« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2014, 11:24 »
+7
Over time I have found that few have the stomach or inclination to uncover the cold hard facts. Life is more pleasant when viewed through rose colored glasses.

When this site began most of the people who visited here came to discus the cold hard facts of business, many of those people have moved on for one reason or another.

When this site censored my post by removing the cold hard facts, information which took several months to gather. Documentation taken directly from the SEC & Insight Venture Partner sites, it reduced my post above to just one persons opinion, which it is not.

Granted most people do not want take the time to uncover the reality of the situation and most people will not take the time to read nor understand it. However I posted a good deal of information that is relevant and important to contributors as business people and most contributors do not have the time or inclination to do their own research or read threads about SSTK stock.

Leaf left the longer post above that Jon wrote, but removed the actual documentation that is crucial to understand just who we are dealing with, when making business decisions regarding our future.

I am sure shutterstock much prefers the censored version which leaves the false perception that Jon is still in control of shutterstock intact.

Not to discount any research that went into it, but is there really anything being hidden from us? Most of it seems pretty much on the surface for us to see right in front of us.

« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2014, 12:48 »
+6
it is part of shutters brand to not have exclusives.
among several reasons, one is overlooked: quality.


By not having exclusivety, shutterstock get the best content, because they can attract a group of photographers with high earning images, who can already sell them well at other outlets, but also want to sweep up the crums from microstock.

Exclusivety is a double edged sword, it only works when the return is high enough to keep the best photographers in the stable.
and exclusivety is dangerous, as it may develop into a kindergarden when the return is falling and the imprisoned artists are not encouraged to evolve.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 13:33 by JPSDK »

« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2014, 12:57 »
0
Over time I have found that few have the stomach or inclination to uncover the cold hard facts. Life is more pleasant when viewed through rose colored glasses.

When this site began most of the people who visited here came to discus the cold hard facts of business, many of those people have moved on for one reason or another.

When this site censored my post by removing the cold hard facts, information which took several months to gather. Documentation taken directly from the SEC & Insight Venture Partner sites, it reduced my post above to just one persons opinion, which it is not.

Granted most people do not want take the time to uncover the reality of the situation and most people will not take the time to read nor understand it. However I posted a good deal of information that is relevant and important to contributors as business people and most contributors do not have the time or inclination to do their own research or read threads about SSTK stock.

Leaf left the longer post above that Jon wrote, but removed the actual documentation that is crucial to understand just who we are dealing with, when making business decisions regarding our future.

I am sure shutterstock much prefers the censored version which leaves the false perception that Jon is still in control of shutterstock intact.


Not to discount any research that went into it, but is there really anything being hidden from us? Most of it seems pretty much on the surface for us to see right in front of us.

If that is the case I do not see anyone here discussing it. For instance in this thread most seem to feel that Jon is still making the decisions at shutterstock, when that has not been the case for some time.

I have never seen anyone mention that Insight Venture Partners worked closely with Jon, to recruit the new executive team at Shutterstock, in particular the President, CFO, CTO, VPCD and other mid-level managers. http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdf

Or that Jeff Lieberman a Board Director At Shutterstock, Inc. and an Independent Director at Shutterstock, Inc. is also a Managing Director at Insight Venture Management LLC.

I have never heard anyone here mention that Insight Venture Partners Tech Support mentored and worked closely with shutterstock's existing technology development team prior to James Chou CTO joining Shutterstock to develop a new search.

Or that Insight Venture Partners Introduced James Chou who is now Chief Technology Officer at Shutterstock, to Shutterstock from Insights network. He is the person responsible for overseeing and developing the new search at Shutterstock and they have been overseeing it's development from the beginning.

I have never heard anyone mention that David Fraga VPCD- Vice President, Corporate Development at Shutterstock was Previously an Insight Venture Partners Employee as an Analyst at Insight Venture Partners

http://tinyurl.com/mubpw4m

I wont recap what I found when looking into insider trades in regarding to Insight Venture Partners in its various renditions or insider trades for the new the member of new executive team at Shutterstock which Insight Venture Partners had a key role in appointing.


« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2014, 13:44 »
+4
If that is the case I do not see anyone here discussing it. For instance in this thread most seem to feel that Jon is still making the decisions at shutterstock, when that has not been the case for some time.

While some of their corporate structure can definitely end up affecting us in regards to exclusivity and beyond, it really doesn't affect us until it does. I don't say that to sound like I'm not preparing for worse case scenarios or not paying attention to what is happening. It's just that whether they announce a chimp, Jon or the Dalai Lama is running the place, I can still only really go off of what I/we think will happen or what they say they are doing. And most of those tea leaves are read aloud here on a regular basis.

« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2014, 05:50 »
+2
If that is the case I do not see anyone here discussing it. For instance in this thread most seem to feel that Jon is still making the decisions at shutterstock, when that has not been the case for some time.

While some of their corporate structure can definitely end up affecting us in regards to exclusivity and beyond, it really doesn't affect us until it does. I don't say that to sound like I'm not preparing for worse case scenarios or not paying attention to what is happening. It's just that whether they announce a chimp, Jon or the Dalai Lama is running the place, I can still only really go off of what I/we think will happen or what they say they are doing. And most of those tea leaves are read aloud here on a regular basis.

It does make a difference who is running the place, if you take a look at the track record of who is now running shutterstock and I have. Historically they have taken the company public, put things in place so that they are able to run up stock prices while granting themselves stock at $0 per share. (The Securities and Exchange Commission documentation for this has been censored) Sell those shares off until it is not longer possible to milk more from the company - i.e. our assets. At that point they bail and move on to the next victim.

Bottom line we should be worried about the value of our assets when they are done pillaging.


« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2014, 06:53 »
0
I dot think exclusive content should be preferred in the search. That just gives the customer a worse service. They should just be clearly marked as exclusive content and there should be a search option to look at only exclusive content.

Maybe SS itself is not the best agencyto experiment with midstock content. But they have the very high end with Offset and the low end with subs and Shutterstock, why not experiment with exclusive images? Not artist exclusivity, just images.

They could also then pick their favorites and promote them to offset, creating another stream of images that "they have grown themselves". The images on offset are mostly exclusive images anyway, they just come from many different agencies.

Smaller agencies like blend,tetra,plainpictures,westend61 are very good at nurturing and discovering talent, they work closely with their artists and together create a distinct style.

Offset could use the midstock platform to look for talent and more specialized images, they cannot find on Shutterstock.

Anyway it is up to them. But istock is mostly midstock with 180 million dollar market share plus the midstock market on getty itself (probably another few hundred million dollars) is quite an interesting number to look at.

And exclusive images pulls in customers. The higher prices means the artist can invest more in production or create content that is not generic.


« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2014, 09:46 »
+4
I've been on the buying side of microstock where I had to negotiate the best subscription deals for a company. Each agency tried to point out minor differences in the content, but when it came down to it, the content is mostly the same. The buying point ends up being strictly on price, not unique content. When the agencies are getting beat up on price, it inevitably ends up with lower royalties for photographers. I think image exclusivity is a way to make stock less of a supermarket concept where price competition is the main factor, to a more qualitative market. SS will likely never go that way as they are very good at the competing in that marketplace, but I wonder if other agencies would not be better served going this route. 

« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2014, 10:03 »
+2
I've been on the buying side of microstock where I had to negotiate the best subscription deals for a company. Each agency tried to point out minor differences in the content, but when it came down to it, the content is mostly the same. The buying point ends up being strictly on price, not unique content. When the agencies are getting beat up on price, it inevitably ends up with lower royalties for photographers. I think image exclusivity is a way to make stock less of a supermarket concept where price competition is the main factor, to a more qualitative market. SS will likely never go that way as they are very good at the competing in that marketplace, but I wonder if other agencies would not be better served going this route.

Negotiating price on subscriptions is a scary thought.

« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2014, 11:10 »
+1
Quote
Negotiating price on subscriptions is a scary thought.

Indeed it is. Not pleasant and not something I particularly wanted to do, but was obligated to do. It did give me a good insight into how commodity driven micro is. Micro stock agencies are akin to  supermarkets and department stores that beat each other up on price points. Image exclusive content at least gives them something different to market and sell, hopefully at a higher value. 

« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2014, 11:26 »
0
I've been on the buying side of microstock where I had to negotiate the best subscription deals for a company. Each agency tried to point out minor differences in the content, but when it came down to it, the content is mostly the same. The buying point ends up being strictly on price, not unique content. When the agencies are getting beat up on price, it inevitably ends up with lower royalties for photographers. I think image exclusivity is a way to make stock less of a supermarket concept where price competition is the main factor, to a more qualitative market. SS will likely never go that way as they are very good at the competing in that marketplace, but I wonder if other agencies would not be better served going this route.

Exactly they chose this route to gain market share.

« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2014, 11:46 »
-3
I dot think exclusive content should be preferred in the search. That just gives the customer a worse service. They should just be clearly marked as exclusive content and there should be a search option to look at only exclusive content.

Maybe SS itself is not the best agencyto experiment with midstock content. But they have the very high end with Offset and the low end with subs and Shutterstock, why not experiment with exclusive images? Not artist exclusivity, just images.

They could also then pick their favorites and promote them to offset, creating another stream of images that "they have grown themselves". The images on offset are mostly exclusive images anyway, they just come from many different agencies.

Smaller agencies like blend,tetra,plainpictures,westend61 are very good at nurturing and discovering talent, they work closely with their artists and together create a distinct style.

Offset could use the midstock platform to look for talent and more specialized images, they cannot find on Shutterstock.

Anyway it is up to them. But istock is mostly midstock with 180 million dollar market share plus the midstock market on getty itself (probably another few hundred million dollars) is quite an interesting number to look at.

And exclusive images pulls in customers. The higher prices means the artist can invest more in production or create content that is not generic.


Jon was fully aware that the market existed in 2007 and he chose to ignore & stiff his talent to go after market share.

April 4 2007

Snip

"Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated."

But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"

http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj

I find it frustrating that history is ignored by newcomers regarding shutterstock, Jon purposely chose to keep pricing low on all images in the shutterstock collection, despite pleading by many of its high end contributors to raise prices and he did this to gain market share.

Shutterstock is the polar opposite of "blend, tetra, plainpictures and westend61 who are very good at nurturing and discovering talent, they work closely with their artists and together create a distinct style."

If Jon did not care about contributors historically, why do you think he will care about them now or in the future?  Case in point shutterstock had a chance to roll its best content into Offset. Instead they chose to stiff its best content providers. At this point Yuri, Andreas and other contributors chose to exit or place their higher end content elsewhere and who can blame them.

Snip

For a maturing photographer microstock is a great learning platform, but if you mistake school for workplace, you are in trouble. I did so for years.

I would estimate that for the last three years I tried very hard to convince myself that microstock was in fact the right place for the professional photographer. After all, my photography carrier was born here. Perhaps exactly because of that, I tried so hard to disregard a growing mismatch between microstock and myself, in product refinement, sophistication and budget. As we grew in skills, as our company grew, our distribution partners in microstock did not. Some agencies where ok, but in total, as a mass and as a workplace, the picture was not nice.

Sometimes it felt like having a michelin restaurant inside a burger joint and at the same time having to match the prices. At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices.

I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.

I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.


http://tinyurl.com/phnjox6

Uncle Pete

« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2014, 13:57 »
+7
I don't get it? You refer to Jon and then finish with a quote from Yuri (who you will recall went exclusive on IS?) to prove your point? Hmm, IS with subs and Thinkstock and discounts upon discounts and that proves that, as usual from your perspective, SS is the problem and cause?

Please, there are 1000 other agencies, trying to win the race to the bottom at our expense. SS happens to pay people a fair about and I mean Bottom Line, not 70% of nothing and promises.

Would I like to be rewarded a fair amount for my work, of course. We all would. We should get 80% and the agents 20%, not the way it is now. Reversed.

But you are ignoring the market and suppliers and throwing every brick you can at SS and it's investors. Please don't post the four page financial expose' again, the last 50 times were enough.  ;) They spent the money they didn't do it for us, they did it for their benefit and financial profits. Of course they will get paid in stock and sell it off to re-pay their outlays. It's not unusual or anything different than any other business.

How about the Microstock market as a whole, not blaming SS or investors for what's wrong? How about that the top four on the right are roughly the only four viable places for artists to make a reliable return? Why is that? You're going to say, it's all because of SS?

Hard for me to accept that narrow viewpoint.

« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2014, 14:32 »
+1
How about the Microstock market as a whole, not blaming SS or investors for what's wrong? How about that the top four on the right are roughly the only four viable places for artists to make a reliable return? Why is that? You're going to say, it's all because of SS?

There is probably a chicken and egg answer to that of which came first. Dominance of the big 4 or belief in the dominance of the big 4?  ;)

« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2014, 14:53 »
+3
I don't get it? You refer to Jon and then finish with a quote from Yuri (who you will recall went exclusive on IS?) to prove your point? Hmm, IS with subs and Thinkstock and discounts upon discounts and that proves that, as usual from your perspective, SS is the problem and cause?

Please, there are 1000 other agencies, trying to win the race to the bottom at our expense. SS happens to pay people a fair about and I mean Bottom Line, not 70% of nothing and promises.

Would I like to be rewarded a fair amount for my work, of course. We all would. We should get 80% and the agents 20%, not the way it is now. Reversed.

But you are ignoring the market and suppliers and throwing every brick you can at SS and it's investors. Please don't post the four page financial expose' again, the last 50 times were enough.  ;) They spent the money they didn't do it for us, they did it for their benefit and financial profits. Of course they will get paid in stock and sell it off to re-pay their outlays. It's not unusual or anything different than any other business.

How about the Microstock market as a whole, not blaming SS or investors for what's wrong? How about that the top four on the right are roughly the only four viable places for artists to make a reliable return? Why is that? You're going to say, it's all because of SS?

Hard for me to accept that narrow viewpoint.

Excellent post. Very well said. I'm sure we'll get the same financial conspiracy theories posted another 50x though.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2014, 15:14 »
0

« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2014, 17:11 »
0
I don't get it? You refer to Jon and then finish with a quote from Yuri (who you will recall went exclusive on IS?) to prove your point? Hmm, IS with subs and Thinkstock and discounts upon discounts and that proves that, as usual from your perspective, SS is the problem and cause?

Please, there are 1000 other agencies, trying to win the race to the bottom at our expense. SS happens to pay people a fair about and I mean Bottom Line, not 70% of nothing and promises.

Would I like to be rewarded a fair amount for my work, of course. We all would. We should get 80% and the agents 20%, not the way it is now. Reversed.

But you are ignoring the market and suppliers and throwing every brick you can at SS and it's investors. Please don't post the four page financial expose' again, the last 50 times were enough.  ;) They spent the money they didn't do it for us, they did it for their benefit and financial profits. Of course they will get paid in stock and sell it off to re-pay their outlays. It's not unusual or anything different than any other business.

How about the Microstock market as a whole, not blaming SS or investors for what's wrong? How about that the top four on the right are roughly the only four viable places for artists to make a reliable return? Why is that? You're going to say, it's all because of SS?

Hard for me to accept that narrow viewpoint.

What is not to get?

It is very simple. All this talk about shutterstock morphing into something it has never been is non productive.

I posted a link to show that Jon thought about selling midstock images as early as 2007. It is a fact that in the end he chose not to do this even though he knew full well the market was there.

I also posted a link where Yuri expresses his frustration at shutterstock and other microstock companies who failed to provide an outlet for a midstock product. Instead they expected HCV submitters to continue to provide midstock work at sub prices. This worked well for micro owners because it helped them gain market share, it did and does not work well for HCV contributors.

I know you would all love to discount the effect which market leaders have on the rest of the market.  The fact of the matter is that the choices they made and continue to make; did affect the entire market.

Snip
Perhaps exactly because of that, I tried so hard to disregard a growing mismatch between microstock and myself, in product refinement, sophistication and budget. As we grew in skills, as our company grew, our distribution partners in microstock did not. Some agencies where ok, but in total, as a mass and as a workplace, the picture was not nice.

Sometimes it felt like having a michelin restaurant inside a burger joint and at the same time having to match the prices. At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices.

I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.

I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.



« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2014, 17:16 »
+1

I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.

I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.

Well if you were able to get meetings with these people, you must be a very big fish.  Thank you for your efforts. 

It is scary to think that even all that effort could not get the agencies to improve their policies toward contributors, and create a better climate for HCV producers. 

That says it all really. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2014, 17:20 »
+3

I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.

I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.

Well if you were able to get meetings with these people, you must be a very big fish.  Thank you for your efforts. 

The URL at the bottom of that post, http://tinyurl.com/phnjox6, shows that the person who met the people was Yuri.
Which doesn't negate the rest of your post.


« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2014, 17:32 »
+1

I tried everything I could for three years to inspire our microstock partners to close the gab. I submitted plans, did projection forecasts, showcased examples that worked, presented solutions and had literally hundreds of meetings.

I tried every kind of approach I could think of to get the micro agencies to raise prices just a bit and leave place for the kind of photographer both photographers and customers love. I spent literally months in airplanes. No Luck.

Well if you were able to get meetings with these people, you must be a very big fish.  Thank you for your efforts. 

The URL at the bottom of that post, http://tinyurl.com/phnjox6, shows that the person who met the people was Yuri.
Which doesn't negate the rest of your post.


Thank you.  That makes more sense.  It is confusing when people post such long posts with so many different quotes and no 'quotation marks'. 

« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2014, 17:34 »
+3
snip-

What is not to get?

It is very simple. All this talk about shutterstock morphing into something it has never been is non productive.

-snip

If SS stays the way it is (was?)  and doesn't morph into something like IS or FT or deposit or 123 or stockxpert or veer I will be quite pleased with them. Expecting them to suddenly become some midstock place is unrealistic. That said I think they did a poor job of implementing offset with respect to the SS contributors and I think the direction they are going with BS is bs.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2014, 17:37 »
+7
Judging from the poll and my own earning, I think it would nearly instant kill other sites but would that be good for the industry in the long run?

I don't think it would instantly kill other sites. But IS is a good example of what can happen to exclusive contributors and I would think most people would have learned their lesson. I know, it's SS, and everybody loves them. Sounds eerily familiar. Wooyay ring a bell? Wait until SS's stock tanks or they sell the company and the new owner starts bleeding contributors dry.

To recap... New sites treat contributors great. Sites start doing well and begin doing bad things to contributors. The more power and leverage the site has the more bad things they do. And if company finances start hurting, bring on the pain.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 17:39 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2014, 17:40 »
-1
snip-

What is not to get?

It is very simple. All this talk about shutterstock morphing into something it has never been is non productive.

-snip

If SS stays the way it is (was?)  and doesn't morph into something like IS or FT or deposit or 123 or stockxpert or veer I will be quite pleased with them. Expecting them to suddenly become some midstock place is unrealistic. That said I think they did a poor job of implementing offset with respect to the SS contributors and I think the direction they are going with BS is bs.

Exactly. Shutterstock isn't supposed to be the place where you put high production cost images. If you do, that's on you, not Shutterstock.  If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

So they hold prices down to keep a larger share of the market? Good! Keep it up. It's the only site where I get regular EL sales and high dollar SOD sales. No other site has paid me $150 for a license.

« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2014, 17:45 »
+3
If SS stays the way it is (was?)  and doesn't morph into something like IS or FT or deposit or 123 or stockxpert or veer I will be quite pleased with them. Expecting them to suddenly become some midstock place is unrealistic. That said I think they did a poor job of implementing offset with respect to the SS contributors and I think the direction they are going with BS is bs.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with at least offering the opportunity for something better for those that want it and know it will work better for them.

« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2014, 17:47 »
-1
...I think they did a poor job of implementing offset with respect to the SS contributors...

How so? I thought Offset was open to everyone to apply.

« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2014, 17:48 »
+4
If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

If more of those places existed, I'd totally do that.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2014, 17:54 »
+2
I don't think it would instantly kill other sites. But IS is a good example of what can happen to exclusive contributors and I would think most people would have learned their lesson. I know, it's SS, and everybody loves them. Sounds eerily familiar. Wooyay ring a bell? Wait until SS's stock tanks or they sell the company and the new owner starts bleeding contributors dry.

To recap... New sites treat contributors great. Sites start doing well and begin doing bad things to contributors. The more power and leverage the site has the more bad things they do. And if company finances start hurting, bring on the pain.

Unfortunately that is a likely scenario, better off moving the higher end work into Offset and Stocksy for longevity.

Microstock is inherently flawed accepting the same old files over and over, eventually it will implode earnings for contributors.


« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2014, 18:39 »
+3
If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

If more of those places existed, I'd totally do that.

My point in the nutshell and exactly what Yuri was trying to accomplish by communicating with the various micro sites. The bottom line is, he accomplished nothing by trying to work with them to move into midstock.

Therefore he was forced to move on to the next best, but limited option.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 18:41 by gbalex »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2014, 23:45 »
+4
I would also cthoman. Where is that Rob? Understand I wouldn't even try for Offset or Stocksy, what I shoot doesn't fit. That doesn't mean anything against those two, which seem to have an interesting idea and direction.

If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

If more of those places existed, I'd totally do that.

Here's something, maybe SS doesn't want to become something different? Maybe they aren't interested in going the way Yuri wanted. And by the way, no one else listened either. But the weight falls again on two names. Oddly the top two?  :) Do all the rest get a free pass or something?

Saying what if SS goes exclusive is like saying, what if I discover gold in my back yard. Highly unlikely. Then the speculation and some criticism, including how it would be wrong to favor exclusive in searches, or some flawed part of something that doesn't exist, is quite odd?

Meanwhile Gbalex I was mostly commenting on the repeating, redundant, repetitious, extended financial quotes, as if they actually have something connected to "SS offering exclusive" or most of the other threads. Not saying it's not interesting or there's anything untrue in them, just that we've read it and seen it. Then you areapplying the same argument every time the name Microstcok and SS comes up, isn't building facts or data.

After so many slices of onion, you have obscured the flavor, point and purpose and all that's left is the taste of bitterness and tears. I don't really think that SS is terribly interested in our opinions, on the, right way they should run their business. Seems they've don't fairly well with the status quo?

The investors are interested in cash flow and recovery of their investment and then making profits. What would you do if you owned the company or had invested millions into Shutterstock?

I find nothing in your long discovery and financial exposure, unusual or out of line for a successful business.

However:

...

To recap... New sites treat contributors great. Sites start doing well and begin doing bad things to contributors. The more power and leverage the site has the more bad things they do. And if company finances start hurting, bring on the pain.


« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2014, 00:18 »
-2
I would also cthoman. Where is that Rob? Understand I wouldn't even try for Offset or Stocksy, what I shoot doesn't fit. That doesn't mean anything against those two, which seem to have an interesting idea and direction.

If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

If more of those places existed, I'd totally do that.

Here's something, maybe SS doesn't want to become something different? Maybe they aren't interested in going the way Yuri wanted. And by the way, no one else listened either. But the weight falls again on two names. Oddly the top two?  :) Do all the rest get a free pass or something?

Saying what if SS goes exclusive is like saying, what if I discover gold in my back yard. Highly unlikely. Then the speculation and some criticism, including how it would be wrong to favor exclusive in searches, or some flawed part of something that doesn't exist, is quite odd?

Meanwhile Gbalex I was mostly commenting on the repeating, redundant, repetitious, extended financial quotes, as if they actually have something connected to "SS offering exclusive" or most of the other threads. Not saying it's not interesting or there's anything untrue in them, just that we've read it and seen it. Then you are applying the same argument every time the name Microstcok and SS comes up, isn't building facts or data.

After so many slices of onion, you have obscured the flavor, point and purpose and all that's left is the taste of bitterness and tears. I don't really think that SS is terribly interested in our opinions, on the, right way they should run their business. Seems they've don't fairly well with the status quo?

The investors are interested in cash flow and recovery of their investment and then making profits. What would you do if you owned the company or had invested millions into Shutterstock?

I find nothing in your long discovery and financial exposure, unusual or out of line for a successful business.

However:

...

To recap... New sites treat contributors great. Sites start doing well and begin doing bad things to contributors. The more power and leverage the site has the more bad things they do. And if company finances start hurting, bring on the pain. [/u]


The point that you don't seem to grasp is that by posting financial data, previous interviews with Jon, info from Earnings Calls, Yuris comments, etc. I am was attempting to drive home your final conclusion. It seems you finally got it!

Shutterstock does not give a rats @$$ what we think or how we are doing, they are in it for the money and if they will not listen to Yuri they certainly will not take our views or financial welfare into consideration.

I am not sure how you misses these points, which I have been trying to make for months.  If we want things to change for the better for contributors, we need to take all of the above into consideration. We are no longer dealing with single micro owners at the big 3, we are dealing with the wallstreet crowd and all that comes with those cutthroat business animals.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 00:20 by gbalex »

« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2014, 02:12 »
+7
I thought my grudge towards Getty is bad, yours towards SS seems to run much deeper.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 09:01 by onepointfour »

« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2014, 03:50 »
+13
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2014, 04:12 »
+1
If Shutterstock introduces Exclusivity everyone who doesn't go exclusive had better get ready to take a paycut to a flat 25c for sub sales. They wont be offering a carrot without offsetting the costs.

« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2014, 09:06 »
+6
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2014, 09:49 »
+7
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

They could always try just giving exclusives a t-shirt and an autographed picture of Jon and see if they accept that.  ;)

« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2014, 09:54 »
-3
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 10:51 by gbalex »

Valo

« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2014, 10:03 »
+2
I don not think Shutterstock has done anything in the past to earn mistrust of image producers. They have not (yet maybe) pulled stunts in the magnitude of Istock, Getty, Fotolia, Deposit Photos, etc. I think at this point it is a case of not guilty until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt (if there is any doubt), etc. etc.


« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2014, 10:31 »
+4
I don not think Shutterstock has done anything in the past to earn mistrust of image producers. They have not (yet maybe) pulled stunts in the magnitude of Istock, Getty, Fotolia, Deposit Photos, etc. I think at this point it is a case of not guilty until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt (if there is any doubt), etc. etc.

I guess it depends on whether you were making money off the partner program or thought BigStock was better before they bought them. Not that those things can't be said about other agencies too, but I don't think anybody really gets a pass.

Valo

« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2014, 10:50 »
+1
Sure, I attempted to put in a balanced comment, everyone has their own opinions. It was just a thought, no biggie.

« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2014, 10:54 »
+2
Sure, I attempted to put in a balanced comment, everyone has their own opinions. It was just a thought, no biggie.

I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2014, 19:33 »
-2
I would also cthoman. Where is that Rob? Understand I wouldn't even try for Offset or Stocksy, what I shoot doesn't fit. That doesn't mean anything against those two, which seem to have an interesting idea and direction.

If you have high production value images, put them somewhere else. What's so hard to get about that?

If more of those places existed, I'd totally do that.

Here's something, maybe SS doesn't want to become something different? Maybe they aren't interested in going the way Yuri wanted. And by the way, no one else listened either. But the weight falls again on two names. Oddly the top two?  :) Do all the rest get a free pass or something?

Saying what if SS goes exclusive is like saying, what if I discover gold in my back yard. Highly unlikely. Then the speculation and some criticism, including how it would be wrong to favor exclusive in searches, or some flawed part of something that doesn't exist, is quite odd?

Meanwhile Gbalex I was mostly commenting on the repeating, redundant, repetitious, extended financial quotes, as if they actually have something connected to "SS offering exclusive" or most of the other threads. Not saying it's not interesting or there's anything untrue in them, just that we've read it and seen it. Then you areapplying the same argument every time the name Microstcok and SS comes up, isn't building facts or data.

After so many slices of onion, you have obscured the flavor, point and purpose and all that's left is the taste of bitterness and tears. I don't really think that SS is terribly interested in our opinions, on the, right way they should run their business. Seems they've don't fairly well with the status quo?

The investors are interested in cash flow and recovery of their investment and then making profits. What would you do if you owned the company or had invested millions into Shutterstock?

I find nothing in your long discovery and financial exposure, unusual or out of line for a successful business.

However:

...

To recap... New sites treat contributors great. Sites start doing well and begin doing bad things to contributors. The more power and leverage the site has the more bad things they do. And if company finances start hurting, bring on the pain.


Pete, if you don't shoot that kind of work, then why worry about it? Offset, Stocksy, Getty, I guess are your only real choices other than selling it yourself. None of those would take my stuff either. Although I think all three sites have some images that aren't as good as some of mine.

If Yuri had succeeded in pushing Shutterstock into midstock, where would that have left the rest of us?

Fact is, Shutterstock just keeps going steady. Almost every step they take increases income. I think the only thing they screwed us on was Bigstock subs, and that's really only some of us who weren't on Bridge.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 19:37 by robhainer »

« Reply #61 on: July 03, 2014, 19:35 »
+4
I'm also guessing Yuri wanted special treatment and SS wouldn't give him what he wanted.

« Reply #62 on: July 03, 2014, 20:03 »
+1
I'm also guessing Yuri wanted special treatment and SS wouldn't give him what he wanted.

I assume it was for him and not us, but I guess if you get your foot in the door others might be able to sneak through too.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #63 on: July 04, 2014, 23:46 »
+4
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

Who Cares if you post the Insight information another 1000 times. I don't own Insight Capitol? The search appears to have been changed, before Insight, according to some people. And another "So What" do you run SS and Insight, and why are you so concerned with their financial business.

What's important to me and I'll guess, most of the rest of us, is OUR business and income.

(you wrote to someone else:) I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

I'd agree with that completely.

I just don't know why you have an antagonist perspective on pretty much everything SS, but that's your right. I'm just tired of reading the same data, which I feel is fairly irrelevant to our situation as artists?

I thought you said you had background in some Fortune 500 company? Granting investors, officers, and some others shares as dividends is SOP. It's not like they are doing something out of the ordinary? Do you know the details of the contract with SS where Insight gave them the money to expand. I mean the details of the agreement, percentages and repayment terms?

« Reply #64 on: July 05, 2014, 05:51 »
+2
The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

Who Cares if you post the Insight information another 1000 times. I don't own Insight Capitol? The search appears to have been changed, before Insight, according to some people. And another "So What" do you run SS and Insight, and why are you so concerned with their financial business.

What's important to me and I'll guess, most of the rest of us, is OUR business and income.

(you wrote to someone else:) I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

I'd agree with that completely.

I just don't know why you have an antagonist perspective on pretty much everything SS, but that's your right. I'm just tired of reading the same data, which I feel is fairly irrelevant to our situation as artists?

I thought you said you had background in some Fortune 500 company? Granting investors, officers, and some others shares as dividends is SOP. It's not like they are doing something out of the ordinary? Do you know the details of the contract with SS where Insight gave them the money to expand. I mean the details of the agreement, percentages and repayment terms?

I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.

« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2014, 09:12 »
0
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

True. By upping commissions to exclusives (if that ever happened) there would have to be an answer for shareholders regarding the additional costs.  If, say, exclusivity costs SS another $250,000 a year, a shareholder would ask what's in it for me? You just pulled xx basis points off the gross margin.  There would have to be a clear, measurable return if they offered exclusivity.  In my mind the right kind of contributors must be wooed to go exclusive. In other words, maybe exclusivity is by invitation only, which would filter out basic portfolios where SS would not gain a market edge by allowing them to go exclusive.  So, let's take Sandralaise as an example.  She has a wonderful, powerful port.  That is the kind of target they might go after, as opposed to someone who snaps basic travel shots or tomatoes on white. Simply no advantage to them on the latter. This is to say that I don't think exclusivity in terms of the contributor making the decision is in the realm of possibility. More along the lines of applying for exclusivity, having your port reviewed for uniqueness, possibly sharing revenue numbers with SS, and then a pragmatic decision could be made.  This, in my mind, would FORCE losing agencies to up their commission game as they would be losing significant revenue from the likes of the sandralaises.

 

« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2014, 11:23 »
0
SS already gets all the content they need. Creating an exclusive collection for them would likely just raise their costs, with possibly no greater return. I don't think the motive is there for them when they can out-sell current competitors without exclusive content.

True. By upping commissions to exclusives (if that ever happened) there would have to be an answer for shareholders regarding the additional costs.  If, say, exclusivity costs SS another $250,000 a year, a shareholder would ask what's in it for me? You just pulled xx basis points off the gross margin.  There would have to be a clear, measurable return if they offered exclusivity.  In my mind the right kind of contributors must be wooed to go exclusive. In other words, maybe exclusivity is by invitation only, which would filter out basic portfolios where SS would not gain a market edge by allowing them to go exclusive.  So, let's take Sandralaise as an example.  She has a wonderful, powerful port.  That is the kind of target they might go after, as opposed to someone who snaps basic travel shots or tomatoes on white. Simply no advantage to them on the latter. This is to say that I don't think exclusivity in terms of the contributor making the decision is in the realm of possibility. More along the lines of applying for exclusivity, having your port reviewed for uniqueness, possibly sharing revenue numbers with SS, and then a pragmatic decision could be made.  This, in my mind, would FORCE losing agencies to up their commission game as they would be losing significant revenue from the likes of the sandralaises.

Yes Sandra has a powerful port and yet not one of her images was included in the Offset collection.

Stocksy was smart to include her work, which better than many images in the Offset collection.


« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2014, 12:50 »
+5
Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

If that's the reason, why not just post a link to the original post with the financial data? It seems that would solve the problem and reduce the amount of flak that you take for re-posting the same information.

« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2014, 13:32 »
+1
I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.

I'm sure I've made this point before, but it seems like everyone has the right to protect their turf. SS works really well for some, and it may actually be the best model for them. I wish that wasn't the case because I know it isn't the best thing for me, but I can't fault them for defending that.

That said, my hope is and continues to be that more agencies realize that they can exist outside that influence and focus on the contributors that actually want something closer to the mythical midstock.

« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2014, 16:01 »
0
I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.


I'm sure I've made this point before, but it seems like everyone has the right to protect their turf. SS works really well for some, and it may actually be the best model for them. I wish that wasn't the case because I know it isn't the best thing for me, but I can't fault them for defending that.

That said, my hope is and continues to be that more agencies realize that they can exist outside that influence and focus on the contributors that actually want something closer to the mythical midstock.


Agreed, thou there was a time when shutterstock's model was kinder to all of us. You know things have turned south, when even those who rely on the micro model to bring in paying customers for workshops; start to complain that the model is broken. http://tinyurl.com/kpcmfjy

And even ardent shutterstock ambassadors have changed their tune. http://tinyurl.com/qc6x25v

Uncle Pete

« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2014, 21:41 »
0
Yup, Yup, Yup, whatever! You want to tell SS how to run their business and they aren't listening to you. Now you claim I'm arguing against a raise?

Pure greed is what got us to this point. Like people taking 20c an Upload feeding some new beast. Or people uploading to every new site that comes along. Competing with themselves on PRICE! While diluting any established business as we race to the bottom and destroy the hopes of anything that resembles a business instead of work at home scheme or MLM.

Look the agencies now have 20 million and up images. What do they need? Why would they pay more to us, when people are begging to get accepted and work for nothing? Try that, instead of the same old tune.



The point that you don't seem to grasp......

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us get it - but you seem intent on hammering away at a bent nail. Presumably with your own head.

Take a step back. Find some equilibrium. Breathe easy. SS is not a perfect marriage for anyone - neither is it to blame for all the crap we have to wade through.

PS. The financial info is useful but personally, I only need to see it once.

Most contributors visit this board only occasionally. Just how many of them do you think will drill down through thousands of posts and obscure threads to uncover that financial information.

From the comments I see here frequently and repeatedly, I really doubt that many get it. How many people here can tell me how many million shares Insight Venture Partners has granted themselves at a cost of $0 dollars? Do they know who implemented the directive and provided the personnel to develop the new search?

Who Cares if you post the Insight information another 1000 times. I don't own Insight Capitol? The search appears to have been changed, before Insight, according to some people. And another "So What" do you run SS and Insight, and why are you so concerned with their financial business.

What's important to me and I'll guess, most of the rest of us, is OUR business and income.

(you wrote to someone else:) I do appreciate your view and comments, I many not agree with them, however I do think we are all entitled to express our viewpoints here.

I'd agree with that completely.

I just don't know why you have an antagonist perspective on pretty much everything SS, but that's your right. I'm just tired of reading the same data, which I feel is fairly irrelevant to our situation as artists?

I thought you said you had background in some Fortune 500 company? Granting investors, officers, and some others shares as dividends is SOP. It's not like they are doing something out of the ordinary? Do you know the details of the contract with SS where Insight gave them the money to expand. I mean the details of the agreement, percentages and repayment terms?

I know of no other business where you will find contributors who will argue against raises and ardently defend destructive business practices. Only in microstock; maybe one day you will wake up to the reality of the situation, I am not holding my breath.  There are plenty of greedy business in this world and many who are the polar opposite. I am not a fan of the former and hate to see the assets derived from hard working people absorbed by the former, because of pure greed.

« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2014, 23:12 »
+1
You must be bored Pete

Uncle Pete

« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2014, 23:29 »
0
No doubt you are correct on that point, as well as some others.  :) Shot last Winter, dashcam on my visor. If you could hear the audio, it's someone laughing while making endless circles in the roundabout. But it does seem appropriate for a circular argument that blames one agency and not the entire industry as it stands at this point.

Just finished a 13 hour day at work, and I'm looking forward to the same again on Sunday. Never a shortage of fun around here. I also shot fireworks and time-lapse last night after a shorter 9 1/2 hour day. Sleep is a waste of time...  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXAo5ts0Tc


You must be bored Pete

« Reply #73 on: July 06, 2014, 00:36 »
-3
No doubt you are correct on that point, as well as some others.  :) Shot last Winter, dashcam on my visor. If you could hear the audio, it's someone laughing while making endless circles in the roundabout. But it does seem appropriate for a circular argument that blames one agency and not the entire industry as it stands at this point.

Just finished a 13 hour day at work, and I'm looking forward to the same again on Sunday. Never a shortage of fun around here. I also shot fireworks and time-lapse last night after a shorter 9 1/2 hour day. Sleep is a waste of time...  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXAo5ts0Tc


You must be bored Pete

Angry, bored and still attempting to stir up trouble.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
44 Replies
12597 Views
Last post August 11, 2011, 08:31
by briciola
27 Replies
6945 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 05:00
by RacePhoto
5 Replies
2994 Views
Last post May 22, 2014, 20:31
by onepointfour
33 Replies
15010 Views
Last post May 13, 2017, 02:36
by Chichikov
5 Replies
2875 Views
Last post May 26, 2020, 02:45
by panicAttack

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle