MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: fotoVoyager on December 11, 2012, 09:01
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/audio/2012/dec/11/audio-tech-weekly-podcast-bitcoin-shutterstock (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/audio/2012/dec/11/audio-tech-weekly-podcast-bitcoin-shutterstock)
It's the first article, so you don't have to wade through all the other stuff.
-
Good interview, thanks for posting. Interesting questions with honest, straightforward answers.
"We sell two images per second ... "
-
Good interview, thanks for posting. Interesting questions with honest, straightforward answers.
"We sell two images per second ... "
2.5 million per day according to my back of fag packet calculations.
-
Interesting listening. Thanks for posting - I do read the Guardian online but had missed that.
The comment about volume, not unique content, was their differentiator was interesting. As was the flywheel comment about how buyer searches and contributors noticing trends via sales and responding through more uploads to what they saw, in real time, was selling.
I think the idea that if you can get search right, you can have a huge collection and still present buyers with what they're looking for - no wading through pages of results required - has merit. I do a fair number of Google searches (not for images) and it's uncanny how often I get the drop down list finishing my sentence for me even when it's not a search I've done before. If you get the volume of searches high enough, the data you gather really helps you do smart things.
So you build the smarts from searches and volume, not from CVs and tight editorial control. It may be that the wheels will spin off the wagon at some point, but it does seem like it has the potential to be a real shift in how agencies run things. Previously it was just making a digital version of what they'd been doing for ages with slides
-
Good interview, thanks for posting. Interesting questions with honest, straightforward answers.
"We sell two images per second ... "
2.5 million per day according to my back of fag packet calculations.
a day has 3600 seconds (1 hour) x 24 x 2 = 172800
x 365 days = 63M
-
Good interview, thanks for posting. Interesting questions with honest, straightforward answers.
"We sell two images per second ... "
2.5 million per day according to my back of fag packet calculations.
a day has 3600 seconds (1 hour) x 24 x 2 = 172800
x 365 days = 63M
Doh!
-
Good interview, thanks for posting. Interesting questions with honest, straightforward answers.
"We sell two images per second ... "
2.5 million per day according to my back of fag packet calculations.
a day has 3600 seconds (1 hour) x 24 x 2 = 172800
x 365 days = 63M
Doh!
they would be selling 10% of their content everyday :D
-
To me, the real news here is this... anyone who was holding out hope that SS might someday offer exclusivity and give those artists a better deal, can kiss that hope goodbye. Jon really stresses the point that his selling point is volume, not unique content, and SS treats all its images and artists equally. The competitors can acquire unique content, but that's not the game he's playing. He's proud of his subscription model, and the simplicity of his pricing... everything is priced the same. I don't think I would have gone for exclusivity, but others here have been wishing for it.
-
Jon is the man, hope I don't need to digest that later ;D
thanks for sharing William ;)
-
Jon is the man
Yep he's doing very well for himself.
-
Jon is the man
Yep he's doing very well for himself.
we could discuss that all week, month, year long but I believe we won't see many unhappy people with SS, sure I would be delighted to have 2$ RPD, I guess you would be happy with iStock having buyers back ;D (not to upset you)
-
Well my 15-25 sales per day fit right in then, with over 170,000 sales per day. For feck sake I need to come up with better stuff :o
-
He's proud of his subscription model, and the simplicity of his pricing... everything is priced the same.
I don't see why that's such a great thing. Isn't it really a limitation of this business model?
Some products cost more to produce, and if that can't be reflected in their sale price, they just won't be produced - or they'll be sold through other channels. You can't get everything you want at an "Everythings $1" store.
-
He's proud of his subscription model, and the simplicity of his pricing... everything is priced the same.
I don't see why that's such a great thing. Isn't it really a limitation of this business model?
Some products cost more to produce, and if that can't be reflected in their sale price, they just won't be produced - or they'll be sold through other channels. You can't get everything you want at an "Everythings $1" store.
Indeed, that's why you have Saks/Harrods.
Some people try to have something for everyone, others stick to what they know and what works for them.
Seems like SSers won't be getting any raises soon, from what he said.
-
He's proud of his subscription model, and the simplicity of his pricing... everything is priced the same.
I don't see why that's such a great thing. Isn't it really a limitation of this business model?
Some products cost more to produce, and if that can't be reflected in their sale price, they just won't be produced - or they'll be sold through other channels. You can't get everything you want at an "Everythings $1" store.
That's why he's going to become a billionaire ... and you won't. The 'products' that he sells don't cost him any more money to produce so why should he price them differently, especially if it gives him an advantage over the opposition? Yes, some 'products' cost more to make but hopefully they'll sell more to compensate. The market tends to find it's own level. Other products simply need to be sold at different venues to reflect their value. Jon never said he was going for 100% of the stock image market. There's room for others at different price points.
-
I believe we need to remember how agencies have played with us in the last years, that said I have entered microstock only in 2009 and so far SS is the only agency that haven't pulled any cut or other, not saying I wouldn't want a raise but thats obvious