pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: IS vs SS: buyer's viewpoint  (Read 7715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 29, 2014, 12:00 »
0
http://www.brightcarbon.com/blog/shutterstock-vs-istock-for-presentation-photos/

An interesting thread about IS vs SS from a buyers viewpoint.


Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2014, 12:08 »
+1
I'm just glad they haven't found DPC. ;)

But seriously, I have heard frustrations about model series from art directors who work with iStock/Getty. So the SS model series feature is definitely a plus for some buyers.

« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2014, 12:27 »
+4
How is a year and a half old blog comparing the practically extinct istock credit program relevant now that istock has introduced new subscription plans based on number of images not credits?

« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2014, 13:10 »
+7
An interesting thread about IS vs SS from a buyers viewpoint.

The pricing quoted in the article is completely out of date. Today:

At iStock - 1 month - 250 'essentials' downloads priced in GBP (like the article) is 129.00
At Shutterstock - 1 month - 25 images per day is $249 which is maybe 150 in GBP

So it works out like this. The subscription entry price is less at iStock. In theory you get many more images at Shutterstock - but who seriously uses 25 images per day ? Nobody.

I've been thinking about this whole subscription thing. Contributors should maybe start a Facebook Twitter fair-trade campaign to encourage the customers to download their full quota even if they do not use it (= increased contributor revenues ) - costs the customers nothing except a few minutes of their time.

ETA: the more I look at that article, the more it looks like shill to me. What kind of genuinely busy person wastes their time writing long glowing testimonials. Which makes me doubt the site which is hosting it.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 13:55 by bunhill »

shudderstok

« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2014, 09:46 »
+12
An interesting thread about IS vs SS from a buyers viewpoint.

The pricing quoted in the article is completely out of date. Today:

At iStock - 1 month - 250 'essentials' downloads priced in GBP (like the article) is 129.00
At Shutterstock - 1 month - 25 images per day is $249 which is maybe 150 in GBP

So it works out like this. The subscription entry price is less at iStock. In theory you get many more images at Shutterstock - but who seriously uses 25 images per day ? Nobody.

I've been thinking about this whole subscription thing. Contributors should maybe start a Facebook Twitter fair-trade campaign to encourage the customers to download their full quota even if they do not use it (= increased contributor revenues ) - costs the customers nothing except a few minutes of their time.

ETA: the more I look at that article, the more it looks like shill to me. What kind of genuinely busy person wastes their time writing long glowing testimonials. Which makes me doubt the site which is hosting it.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2014, 14:25 »
+6
Contributors should band together to end subscription sales.

This is not a realistic proposition.

Also - there are more and more images. When a thing is in unlimited supply the price is going to approach zero. Most images are going be available free. But buyers will pay because they find subscription to be a convenient service.

It is the service they will pay for. Not the images.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2014, 19:33 »
+5
How?

I've asked before and no one answers. What power and control do contributors have over agencies that will "end subscriptions"? Writing messages in forums and complaining to like minded people who are also underpaid for their work? Whoopee, it does nothing.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2014, 19:58 »
-2
How?

I've asked before and no one answers. What power and control do contributors have over agencies that will "end subscriptions"? Writing messages in forums and complaining to like minded people who are also underpaid for their work? Whoopee, it does nothing.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

Makes me think of the threat of a philosopher's strike in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  "Who will that inconvenience?," asks Deep Thought.

Ignoring the futility of such a gesture, to me it's misguided.  I like subscriptions; they bring me a lot more sales than I'd get if credit sales were the only option.  I've had most of my success with subscription customers, and I'm happy to supply them.  Yes, I'd love more money per sale, but I expect that the model that does the best for me will combine subscription and one-off sales.

Subscriptions won't go away no matter how much a few suppliers want it.  First there's the inertia of the vast majority of suppliers.  And then there are people like me who think that would be a bad idea, at least for a lot of us.

« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2014, 20:01 »
0
.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2014, 20:11 »
0
Yeah that book is on the To Read shelf, some day.

I also agree that I make more with subs than anything else. Unfortunate but true.

I make more with contract jobs than I do on Micro, but that's really going off the point.

All I want to understand is HOW will the suppliers change the agencies? It's a nice theory, but unfortunately (and here's where people start dropping negatives and name calling) we do not have the power to strike or be empowered to change anything.

Workers have power when they control the means of production or have skills and training that is needed. I'm not saying the people here aren't talented and skilled, but the agencies have 30,000 people who can also produce equal work. So where's the edge, how do we control our own destiny and force any agency to do anything?

I just don't see it. Theoretical idea, where content providers can band together and change things or have a positive effect. I like it. Now back to the reality... we are powerless.

If we have power, what is it. That's the how and no one answers where we get power or what it is.



How?

I've asked before and no one answers. What power and control do contributors have over agencies that will "end subscriptions"? Writing messages in forums and complaining to like minded people who are also underpaid for their work? Whoopee, it does nothing.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

Makes me think of the threat of a philosopher's strike in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  "Who will that inconvenience?," asks Deep Thought.

Ignoring the futility of such a gesture, to me it's misguided.  I like subscriptions; they bring me a lot more sales than I'd get if credit sales were the only option.  I've had most of my success with subscription customers, and I'm happy to supply them.  Yes, I'd love more money per sale, but I expect that the model that does the best for me will combine subscription and one-off sales.

Subscriptions won't go away no matter how much a few suppliers want it.  First there's the inertia of the vast majority of suppliers.  And then there are people like me who think that would be a bad idea, at least for a lot of us.

shudderstok

« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2014, 11:52 »
+3
How?

I've asked before and no one answers. What power and control do contributors have over agencies that will "end subscriptions"? Writing messages in forums and complaining to like minded people who are also underpaid for their work? Whoopee, it does nothing.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

Sadly the Genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Also you have far too many suppliers that are happy selling their photos for sub rates and the agencies are making way too much money to let it go back. So it really comes down to individual actions, support these sites or don't, that is about the best you can do as this model is sadly here to stay. In this race to the bottom, only the agencies will win.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2014, 20:23 »
+1
Yes, Shudder I'm forced to agree with you, individual actions are the best way to deal with this situation. Personal choice. Race to the bottom is real, and we can't reverse history or the market. Yes some agencies have prospered by crowdsourcing images. I don't agree that Subs alone caused all of this, but we can agree to disagree.

But you once again haven't answered the question...

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

HOW? Band together and end subs?

How?

I've asked before and no one answers. What power and control do contributors have over agencies that will "end subscriptions"? Writing messages in forums and complaining to like minded people who are also underpaid for their work? Whoopee, it does nothing.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

Sadly the Genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Also you have far too many suppliers that are happy selling their photos for sub rates and the agencies are making way too much money to let it go back. So it really comes down to individual actions, support these sites or don't, that is about the best you can do as this model is sadly here to stay. In this race to the bottom, only the agencies will win.

« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2014, 09:45 »
+2
Quote
Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

But from a buyers and stock company point of view its great.  And there will ALWAYS be new contributors to pick up from the ones leaving.

They're here to stay.

shudderstok

« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2014, 10:26 »
+1
Yes, Shudder I'm forced to agree with you, individual actions are the best way to deal with this situation. Personal choice. Race to the bottom is real, and we can't reverse history or the market. Yes some agencies have prospered by crowdsourcing images. I don't agree that Subs alone caused all of this, but we can agree to disagree.

But you once again haven't answered the question...

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

HOW? Band together and end subs?

How?

I've asked before and no one answers. What power and control do contributors have over agencies that will "end subscriptions"? Writing messages in forums and complaining to like minded people who are also underpaid for their work? Whoopee, it does nothing.

Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

Sadly the Genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Also you have far too many suppliers that are happy selling their photos for sub rates and the agencies are making way too much money to let it go back. So it really comes down to individual actions, support these sites or don't, that is about the best you can do as this model is sadly here to stay. In this race to the bottom, only the agencies will win.

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2014, 18:55 »
+5
Many industries have been affected by the electronic age. Stock photos is only one of them. Used to be people sent catalogs or collections, maybe mailed letters or made phone calls. Contacts and agencies. Reputations were built and the system had limited sources. If you wanted some slides on approval, they shipped them to you and they were reviewed.

Now digital equipment. Instead of local markets or national markets, the whole world can click and look and see what people have for sale. Also the equipment to take photos has become available to masses of people, it's not specialized and technical. (but it still helps to be educated and know your trade)

Where a small group of people, made a living shooting stock photos, now the entire population can dive in. What some people in the business of Microstock miss is, there is still cream on the top and some people still stand out and make the best returns.

If you are copying best sellers and others styles, or last years trends... you're too late. That's one mistake that some people make. They think that a popular image, will always be popular. There are trends and styles and fads. What was good two years ago, cutting edge, has been shot to Swiss cheese and is old and over produced. (that's a hint for the list of how to succeed in Microstock)

On a base level. Photo agencies have two choices, same as stores, manufacturers, or anything that's produced and marketed. 1) Lower Price 2) Exclusive and better quality. Go ahead look at food, cars, art, toys, kitchen utensils, pickles, just about anything, and Stock Photos falls into that group.

So we have a commodity that's over supplied, many times more than needed, common, easily reproduced, copied and replicated and the market is flooded. I guess that eliminates number two, doesn't it?

Anyone who expects high pay for something that's abundant and mass produced, is self absorbed and can't see the reality in front of their face. That's someone who keeps shooting sliced vegetables, isolated on white, models with a headset, business handshake and the whole stock or pop Microstock, that's over produced.

I suppose with that it would be helpful and reasonable to offer an answer. Do I need to? (sheep can just keep grazing on the same old pastures and walking in circles, you will get nowhere)

Find a niche, a genre that's in demand right now, be different, explore, INNOVATION not duplication. There's you path and answer. But it takes change and observation and breaking away for the normal easy doing the same old things, or same as someone already did in 2010.

This is the same for any creative field, poetry, art, cinema, writing, music, and Photography.

Blaming the agency and the pay, is just ignoring the real issues. SS 41 million stock images. Alamy 50 million stock images. Do something different in your creative endeavors or do something different for your income. Don't expect high pay for something that doesn't stand out, that has a world of competition and a world market.

If you can do something different and creative and cutting edge, by all means, demand higher prices, don't take Microstock pay for it.

Quote
Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

But from a buyers and stock company point of view its great.  And there will ALWAYS be new contributors to pick up from the ones leaving.

They're here to stay.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014, 18:57 by Uncle Pete »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2014, 19:04 »
0
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.

« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2014, 19:14 »
0
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.
I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen.  I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum.  I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are.  Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things.  As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes. 


cuppacoffee

« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2014, 20:24 »
0
Does widespread discontent include the hobbyists who upload 10 or 20 photos and then disappear to never upload again or collect their money? You will never get them to band together. There are more and more of them and they dont take the business seriously. If they are able to shoot a few images that get past the reviewers they think of themselves as photographers (it used to be a profession). Its getting to be more and more of a ego thing and not a hard work thing. I blame social media and todays look at me mentality.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2014, 20:44 »
0
And in short (yes from me, short?)

Even if people band together and there is a union, club, organized effort and collective will of artists, I'm asking the question I've asked before and before that, and will probably ask again. No one has an answer or is willing to answer?

What power do we have over the agencies to empower us to make change? It's that simple. That's the HOW and what power question. If the people who supply the materials are powerless, all this forum discontent is nothing but wasted words and negativity.


Does widespread discontent include the hobbyists who upload 10 or 20 photos and then disappear to never upload again or collect their money? You will never get them to band together. There are more and more of them and they dont take the business seriously. If they are able to shoot a few images that get past the reviewers they think of themselves as photographers (it used to be a profession). Its getting to be more and more of a ego thing and not a hard work thing. I blame social media and todays look at me mentality.

« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2014, 03:29 »
0
Thank You very much for that post Uncle Pete. Very true!

Many industries have been affected by the electronic age. Stock photos is only one of them. Used to be people sent catalogs or collections, maybe mailed letters or made phone calls. Contacts and agencies. Reputations were built and the system had limited sources. If you wanted some slides on approval, they shipped them to you and they were reviewed.

Now digital equipment. Instead of local markets or national markets, the whole world can click and look and see what people have for sale. Also the equipment to take photos has become available to masses of people, it's not specialized and technical. (but it still helps to be educated and know your trade)

Where a small group of people, made a living shooting stock photos, now the entire population can dive in. What some people in the business of Microstock miss is, there is still cream on the top and some people still stand out and make the best returns.

If you are copying best sellers and others styles, or last years trends... you're too late. That's one mistake that some people make. They think that a popular image, will always be popular. There are trends and styles and fads. What was good two years ago, cutting edge, has been shot to Swiss cheese and is old and over produced. (that's a hint for the list of how to succeed in Microstock)

On a base level. Photo agencies have two choices, same as stores, manufacturers, or anything that's produced and marketed. 1) Lower Price 2) Exclusive and better quality. Go ahead look at food, cars, art, toys, kitchen utensils, pickles, just about anything, and Stock Photos falls into that group.

So we have a commodity that's over supplied, many times more than needed, common, easily reproduced, copied and replicated and the market is flooded. I guess that eliminates number two, doesn't it?

Anyone who expects high pay for something that's abundant and mass produced, is self absorbed and can't see the reality in front of their face. That's someone who keeps shooting sliced vegetables, isolated on white, models with a headset, business handshake and the whole stock or pop Microstock, that's over produced.

I suppose with that it would be helpful and reasonable to offer an answer. Do I need to? (sheep can just keep grazing on the same old pastures and walking in circles, you will get nowhere)

Find a niche, a genre that's in demand right now, be different, explore, INNOVATION not duplication. There's you path and answer. But it takes change and observation and breaking away for the normal easy doing the same old things, or same as someone already did in 2010.

This is the same for any creative field, poetry, art, cinema, writing, music, and Photography.

Blaming the agency and the pay, is just ignoring the real issues. SS 41 million stock images. Alamy 50 million stock images. Do something different in your creative endeavors or do something different for your income. Don't expect high pay for something that doesn't stand out, that has a world of competition and a world market.

If you can do something different and creative and cutting edge, by all means, demand higher prices, don't take Microstock pay for it.

Quote
Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. It has killed the industry for suppliers and made agencies millions all the while completely devaluing the perceived value of images for stock usage.

But from a buyers and stock company point of view its great.  And there will ALWAYS be new contributors to pick up from the ones leaving.

They're here to stay.

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2014, 06:42 »
+2
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.
I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen.  I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum.  I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are.  Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things.  As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes.

The question is, why should people do it?

Subs opened up new markets, IMO. People who before hadn't thought of buying stock or who couldn't afford stock now saw it as a viable option. Or people who bought a couple of images a month now saw an opportunity to offer clients more choices by subscribing and having access to hundreds of unwatermarked images to present (which we get paid for).

The end of subs means the end of that market, which for many of us is our main market. Eliminating subs won't convince that market to pay more.

You may want to eliminate subs because it's good for you personally, but the folks who visit Microstock Group probably aren't your best target audience for that idea. Macrostock Group, on the other hand...

« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2014, 08:50 »
+2
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.
I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen.  I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum.  I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are.  Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things.  As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes.

The question is, why should people do it?

Subs opened up new markets, IMO. People who before hadn't thought of buying stock or who couldn't afford stock now saw it as a viable option. Or people who bought a couple of images a month now saw an opportunity to offer clients more choices by subscribing and having access to hundreds of unwatermarked images to present (which we get paid for).

The end of subs means the end of that market, which for many of us is our main market. Eliminating subs won't convince that market to pay more.

You may want to eliminate subs because it's good for you personally, but the folks who visit Microstock Group probably aren't your best target audience for that idea. Macrostock Group, on the other hand...
Multi billion dollar companies are using stock.  I bet one cent images with all the rights of an EL would open the market even more, opening the market doesn't necessarily mean it's better for us.  Look at DPC, lots of people here are against them but 10 dollars for 10 images probably opens up the market a lot more than a $200/month subscription, is that good for us?  Like I said right now most everyone is doing pretty well at Shutterstock, earnings are steady or rising for most contributors and nothing is going to change unless SS starts to do poorly. 

shudderstok

« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2014, 09:31 »
0











I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.

I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen.  I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum.  I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are.  Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things.  As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes. 
yes that is more or less what he is trying to say. also the post below you with millions of contributors with 20 or so images getting in the way is a very valid point. inactive accounts should mean accounts closed so that the suppliers that are serious about this can make a living. but again, the genie is out of the bottle, and it is all about company profit, not supplier profit. sadly there is nothing only one person can do, but for me, i chose long ago, and continue to do so to not contribute to sub sites. now that being said, my balls have been put in a vice as IS now offers subs. my choice here is to lose a very handsome income or sell out and let them sell subs. if i could opt out, i would, but the agencies don't give me that choice any more. and yeah, it is a hard work thing, but even now that is not really worth the time, it simply does not pay off anymore. when you know you have to sell an image 20 times just to pay for the parking meter to take the shot, you know it's time to question the industry.


Shelma1

« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2014, 09:52 »
0
I see your answer to the question is, you don't have an answer, you just want to wave your hands and shout, Contributors should band together to end subscription sales. You don't have an answer, just a complaint. When pressed for an answer you say "You don't".

HOW? Do you herd cats? The same way you get all photographers to agree what is good for them - you don't.
I think he's saying people should do it but it's not going to happen.  I think that's probably correct judging by the responses in this forum.  I think it will only happen when all of the sites start doing badly for people and they start to really think about what the industry wide problems as a whole are.  Right now too many people say site x is doing badly and that's because of this policy or that when the real issues have less to do with such small things.  As long as most people keep doing well at SS nothing will change but if there is ever widespread discontent with Shutterstock I think people start to make changes.

The question is, why should people do it?

Subs opened up new markets, IMO. People who before hadn't thought of buying stock or who couldn't afford stock now saw it as a viable option. Or people who bought a couple of images a month now saw an opportunity to offer clients more choices by subscribing and having access to hundreds of unwatermarked images to present (which we get paid for).

The end of subs means the end of that market, which for many of us is our main market. Eliminating subs won't convince that market to pay more.

You may want to eliminate subs because it's good for you personally, but the folks who visit Microstock Group probably aren't your best target audience for that idea. Macrostock Group, on the other hand...
Multi billion dollar companies are using stock.  I bet one cent images with all the rights of an EL would open the market even more, opening the market doesn't necessarily mean it's better for us.  Look at DPC, lots of people here are against them but 10 dollars for 10 images probably opens up the market a lot more than a $200/month subscription, is that good for us?  Like I said right now most everyone is doing pretty well at Shutterstock, earnings are steady or rising for most contributors and nothing is going to change unless SS starts to do poorly.

The reason people are upset about DPC is that it offers volume discounts without the volume sales. Subs let you earn money by selling a lot of images, and non-subs let you earn money by selling fewer images for more money, as you know.

Multi-million-dollar companies do use stock, and they pay for non subs. That's why Shutterstock now offers other buying options, and why we get higher commissions from those buyers. (I make more for those sales on SS than I do on iS.)

« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2014, 09:59 »
0
I meant to say multi billion dollar companies use subs like the BBC to name just one.  But once more as long as SODs along with overall sales at Shutterstock are increasing or at least staying steady for most contributors there is not going to be enough will to change or even to honestly reflect on the situation.  Things will probably have to get worse before they get better.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2014, 10:07 »
0
I'm forced to agree with what you have written:

Dormant/inactive accounts are a waste and maybe agencies should start closing them. I know it's just space, but people who tried and left, are a distraction. Most of that material is stale anyway.

True, it is about agency profit not supplier profits. Was it ever different?

Yes, there is nothing that one person can do. I also feel that without leverage or something to hold over the agencies, 10,000 people have no power to make a change, when 20,000 will take the scraps, or minimum returns and be happy.

Good advise, new people should read here and take your advise and that of many others. It's not worth it anymore. Maybe for people who have the large collections in place, but someone starting out, will be disappointed.

I don't have anyplace I go with parking meters, but it is time to question the industry and the value of working it. People here do a good job of that, but get distracted and take it personally instead of looking at the broad picture.

The search changes are not about US, they are about the buyers and the agencies. People might as well get over it. The "good old days" are gone. It's not going to be 2005 or 2007 anymore. Times have changed.

I don't know if it pays anymore. I'll stick to innovation and new ideas and changing what someone uploads. Including finding a niche and looking at trends or different genres for opportunities.

But I sure agree with the entire message from you, that I quoted. Only small disagreement is I like SS and it's growing in returns and earnings, ever since I dropped the rest, except IS. The only two sites that pay, (for me) that's my direction for efforts right now.


... also the post below you with millions of contributors with 20 or so images getting in the way is a very valid point. inactive accounts should mean accounts closed so that the suppliers that are serious about this can make a living. but again, the genie is out of the bottle, and it is all about company profit, not supplier profit. sadly there is nothing only one person can do, but for me, i chose long ago, and continue to do so to not contribute to sub sites. now that being said, my balls have been put in a vice as IS now offers subs. my choice here is to lose a very handsome income or sell out and let them sell subs. if i could opt out, i would, but the agencies don't give me that choice any more. and yeah, it is a hard work thing, but even now that is not really worth the time, it simply does not pay off anymore. when you know you have to sell an image 20 times just to pay for the parking meter to take the shot, you know it's time to question the industry.

« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2014, 10:16 »
+1
Subs let you earn money by selling a lot of images, and non-subs let you earn money by selling fewer images for more money

The larger the collections inevitably grow, the more likely it is that the RF sub model will be about the agency selling in volume and not the individual contributor. Because individual contributors cannot hope to keep up with collection growth.

As the market for cheap stock inevitably declines, the more likely it is that agencies will strike deals which effectively mean that content is provided free at the point of use.

If I was a Shutterstock contributor I would be trying to persuade the buyers to download their complete allowance every day.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 10:25 by bunhill »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1740 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 04:36
by redbaron
18 Replies
6120 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 13:10
by epantha
22 Replies
4004 Views
Last post October 28, 2012, 11:37
by gostwyck
34 Replies
16093 Views
Last post September 26, 2013, 04:15
by ShadySue
20 Replies
3833 Views
Last post November 30, 2015, 10:42
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle