Author Topic: Amazon vs. publishers - and what it says about us (Read 10581 times)

gbalex · « **Reply #25 on:** June 01, 2014, 10:13 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on June 01, 2014, 07:43

Fees are below 50% because it's increasingly hard to sell images.

If it was so easy to sell online then try it out yourseld, build your own site, and see how much you're required to invest in advertising.

Microstock in particular is a cut-throat business, there's a good reason if SS is spending up to half of its earning in marketing and advertising.

If it's hard for the market leaders why it should be any easier for the average stock photographer ?

Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2014 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Snip

Shifting to operating expenses for the first quarter, our gross margin was 60% as compared to 61% a year ago, and this reflects somewhat higher investment in content, customer support and our network and hosting infrastructure. It's important to note that contributor royalties, which make up approximately 28% of revenue and fall within the cost of goods line before gross margin, have remained consistent over many quarters.

Sales and marketing expense was $19.3 million or 26% of revenue, in line with our expectations, and we continue to find cost-effective ways to increase our marketing spend, all while maintaining our customer acquisition economics. As we've noted for several quarters, we intend to reinvest incremental margin generated from faster revenue growth into additional sales and marketing efforts to maintain or even hopefully increase that growth rate where possible. The result of this strategy has been strengthening top line growth on a larger revenue base over the past several quarters.

It is also important to note that we continue to expect approximately 100% of the revenue from existing customers in 2013 to recur again in 2014, as we have for several years. This trend is also true of both our video footage and enterprise customers. Recurring purchase behavior is fairly consistent across all of our product offerings.

http://tinyurl.com/mw7pudh

Shelma1 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 01, 2014, 10:25 »

You repost the same stuff so many times I don't bother reading your posts any more.

gbalex · « **Reply #27 on:** June 01, 2014, 11:05 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 01, 2014, 10:25

You repost the same stuff so many times I don't bother reading your posts any more.

And you follow me around bagging on me in so many threads that I have lost all respect for you.

Shall I return the favor?

Ariene · « **Reply #28 on:** June 01, 2014, 13:23 »

Do you, guys, have PM blocked? Please...

donding · « **Reply #29 on:** June 01, 2014, 14:45 »

Quote from: EmberMike on June 01, 2014, 08:45

Quote from: donding on May 31, 2014, 16:07
From my viewpoint it seems the agencies that offer the larger commissions are usually not that successful. The sales are low and the profit is lower than we make at the larger agencies with lower commissions. I agree that we need to refuse to join an agency that offers less than 50% in the future, but will the one who offers the higher commissions become successful?

There is no proof that agencies with larger commissions aren't successful because they pay more to contributors. Just because we have yet to see an agency hit the Top Tier while paying 50% or more doesn't mean it can't happen.

Quote from: donding on May 31, 2014, 16:07
...The question is if one of these agencies that paid higher commissions become successful, how long would it take before the greed kicked in and slowly they take more and more? The successful ones did just that...

They all did that? Really? I don't recall Shutterstock ever cutting my pay. Or most of the other Top And Middle Tier companies either. iStock did, Fotolia did, who else? Envato raised my pay rate. Shutterstock used to give regular raises as well.

I never understood where this generalization comes from. Just because a few companies cut pay you've decided that all companies will do the same. When really there is no reason to believe that the majority of companies would do the same in a higher position in the market.

I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.

cthoman · « **Reply #30 on:** June 01, 2014, 17:25 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on June 01, 2014, 07:43

Fees are below 50% because it's increasingly hard to sell images.

If it was so easy to sell online then try it out yourseld, build your own site, and see how much you're required to invest in advertising.

Done. The answer is not much. Can I get paid more now?

Quote from: EmberMike on June 01, 2014, 08:45

Just because we have yet to see an agency hit the Top Tier while paying 50% or more doesn't mean it can't happen.

Turn off the 50 contributor cap and there would probably be a couple in the top tier.

EmberMike · « **Reply #31 on:** June 01, 2014, 18:52 »

Quote from: donding on June 01, 2014, 14:45

I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.

I still don't understand why you're assuming that companies who make it big will lower commissions. The biggest company in the business hasn't cut rates, nor have most of the top tier and middle tier companies.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** June 01, 2014, 20:12 »

Quote from: EmberMike on June 01, 2014, 18:52

Quote from: donding on June 01, 2014, 14:45
I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.

I still don't understand why you're assuming that companies who make it big will lower commissions. The biggest company in the business hasn't cut rates, nor have most of the top tier and middle tier companies.

iStock, Fotolia, Dreasmtime, 123rf, Alamy, Bigstock, Canstock have all cut royalties. Shutterstock has effectively reduced a few things (EL royalties when they introduced higher price packages but our cut was the same as before) but in general has not. Envato hasn't made the big time, so jury's out on them

donding · « **Reply #33 on:** June 01, 2014, 20:53 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 01, 2014, 20:12

Quote from: EmberMike on June 01, 2014, 18:52
Quote from: donding on June 01, 2014, 14:45
I never said that an agency paying higher commissions couldn't make it, they just usually don't these days....what I said was if they did make it big how long would it take for them to lower commission's. Shutterstock started out as a sub site and still is. They are my main earner because of volume...not because of higher commission rates.

I still don't understand why you're assuming that companies who make it big will lower commissions. The biggest company in the business hasn't cut rates, nor have most of the top tier and middle tier companies.

iStock, Fotolia, Dreasmtime, 123rf, Alamy, Bigstock, Canstock have all cut royalties. Shutterstock has effectively reduced a few things (EL royalties when they introduced higher price packages but our cut was the same as before) but in general has not. Envato hasn't made the big time, so jury's out on them

Thank you Jo Ann. I wasn't going to argue with him...

Hobostocker · « **Reply #34 on:** June 02, 2014, 01:30 »

ultimately it's the buyers who are buying less due to budget cuts, newspapers going bankrupt, and the whole crisis in the editorial and print business.

we can't expect the market to keep the same going rates as pre-2008, it's unrealistic, even lots of in-house photographers lost their jobs in the major news agencies and now are struggling doing freelance jobs.

and it's not as bad as in the music business or in any other digital business in my opinion, i see ebooks and videogames and apps being sold online for 0.99$ for instance and despite this lots of users stick with free and freemium apps.

i don't think the issue is just our low fees, the real issue is buyers are slashing their budgets and there's nothing we can do about it, paired with the fact that the entire editorial world is moving to digital and online where they dont have any need for high-res images.

it's silly to complain so much as from any perspective we're still having it better than in many other creative fields and there's no doubt it's easier to shoot photos than writing a whole book or coding a videogame or an App.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #35 on:** June 04, 2014, 12:41 »

A slightly different point of view on the spat - one that makes the publishers seem less like defenders of authors and more like defenders of an old order that really should go...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/war-on-amazon-publishing-writers

Ava Glass · « **Reply #36 on:** June 04, 2014, 20:35 »

Important quote from that Guardian article:

Quote

Legacy publishers pay authors only twice a year. (Has there ever been anything like that in any other industry?) They generally pay us only 12.5% in digital royalties, compared to the 70% we get from Amazon. They insist on taking control of our copyright not for a reasonable term, but forever.

Amazon made a lot of authors happy and finally able to earn a living.

pancaketom · « **Reply #37 on:** June 04, 2014, 21:26 »

It is probably fair to say that Amazon is working for Amazon and the publishers are working for the publishers. The authors are probably pawns for both of them - although like microstock Amazon has opened up possibilities for many that were locked out by the traditional publishers. Actually the situation is probably pretty similar - the successful authors did very well under the old system and the ones who couldn't get in didn't. Technology and Amazon cracked that nut, and we still don't know where it will all end up.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Amazon vs. publishers - and what it says about us (Read 10581 times)

gbalex

Shelma1

gbalex

Ariene

donding

cthoman

EmberMike

Jo Ann Snover

donding

Hobostocker

Jo Ann Snover

Ava Glass

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors