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.

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.

Quote from: cthoman on July 02, 2014, 17:48

Quote from: robhainer on July 02, 2014, 17:40

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:

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 02, 2014, 17:37

...

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.

I'm also guessing Yuri wanted special treatment and SS wouldn't give him what he wanted.

Quote from: gbalex on July 03, 2014, 09:54

Quote from: Red Dove on July 03, 2014, 03:50

Quote from: gbalex on July 03, 2014, 00:18

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.

Quote from: gbalex on July 03, 2014, 10:54

(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?

Quote from: jrwasserman on July 03, 2014, 09:06

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.

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.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 04, 2014, 23:46

Quote from: gbalex on July 03, 2014, 09:54

Quote from: Red Dove on July 03, 2014, 03:50

Quote from: gbalex on July 03, 2014, 00:18

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.

Quote from: gbalex on July 03, 2014, 10:54

(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.

You must be bored Pete