pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Protect the market  (Read 16271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2014, 11:31 »
+5
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Shutterstock spent $56,738,000 USD on sales and marketing in 2013. Get yourself educated please.

Edit: voting down facts doesnt make it go away. Fact is fact. You may not like the answer, thats your problem.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 11:43 by Ron »


Tror

« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2014, 11:31 »
+2
Stockfresh

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2014, 11:33 »
+1
Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Just type in terms in Google as if you were searching for stock art and see what ads pop up. Surf the web and count how many ads you see for stock art sites as well. They pay for those ads.

« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2014, 11:40 »
+2
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

We forget that we are the buyers. IS lost many of its contributor/buyers when they slashed royalties. SS gained a large portion of those buyers  and they gained a huge chunk of the market because they kept pricing stagnant for 9 years.

I buy far more images than I produce and I am not alone, I know many dual buyer/contributors. Stocksy is a perfect example of a site that is set up to take advantage of this dual relationship. We do support fair business's especially when it is in our own best interest. Buyer/Contributors helped bring IS success before IS sold and things went south and we bailed on them.

« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2014, 11:41 »
+3
Stockfresh

Really?  I've had most of my portfolio up on Stockfresh since they went live four years ago, and in all that time they've produced nothing.  123RF earns me more in a month than Stockfresh has done in four years, and Shutterstock does about twice that.  SF has been a waste of time and energy, and demonstrates that a storefront with no marketing plan won't produce sales.

EmberMike

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2014, 14:11 »
+2
Really?  I've had most of my portfolio up on Stockfresh since they went live four years ago, and in all that time they've produced nothing.  123RF earns me more in a month than Stockfresh has done in four years, and Shutterstock does about twice that.  SF has been a waste of time and energy, and demonstrates that a storefront with no marketing plan won't produce sales.

The question was about potential, not current earnings.

From the OP:

Quote
Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2014, 14:23 »
+4
Really?  I've had most of my portfolio up on Stockfresh since they went live four years ago, and in all that time they've produced nothing.  123RF earns me more in a month than Stockfresh has done in four years, and Shutterstock does about twice that.  SF has been a waste of time and energy, and demonstrates that a storefront with no marketing plan won't produce sales.

The question was about potential, not current earnings.

From the OP:

Quote
Please disregard the current sales performance of your media type, instead consider the potential return per sale and track record of the company in the stock media marketplace.

From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site.  That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry.  "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase.  In the real world it hardly ever works out.

EmberMike

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2014, 14:32 »
+1
Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!


From this month's HOW Magazine, back cover:



No idea of the cost but I'd assume, $20k. For one month. So just a measly quarter-million dollars per year.

That's just one magazine. Imagine that they are regularly in others as well. Add in their online efforts, mailers, other promotions, events/tradeshows, sponsoring events, paying sales and marketing staff, etc. The millions add up quick.

EmberMike

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2014, 14:37 »
+1
From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site.  That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry.  "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase.  In the real world it hardly ever works out.

I agree. I suspect they have little or no marketing budget and in general they are operating on a pretty slim budget. I made a comment in their forums about the upcoming site redesign and it sounds like Peter is actually working on the design himself, as well as doing some other updates to the current site. Probably a lot of their operation is shoestring DIY kind of stuff. Unless they ramp things up significantly, they're not going anywhere.

Still the question here was about potential and they certainly have it. Especially as it relates to contributor earnings. Decent pricing, very limited subscription offering, 50% royalties, etc. I'd gladly trade all of my SS sales for equal sales at Stockfresh and I'd be sitting on considerably more money as a result.

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2014, 14:52 »
+2
From their track record I get that they have no interest and maybe no ability to spend money to market their site.  That tells me they have no potential to be more than a flyspeck in this industry.  "If you build it, he will come" works great as a movie catchphrase.  In the real world it hardly ever works out.

I agree. I suspect they have little or no marketing budget and in general they are operating on a pretty slim budget. I made a comment in their forums about the upcoming site redesign and it sounds like Peter is actually working on the design himself, as well as doing some other updates to the current site. Probably a lot of their operation is shoestring DIY kind of stuff. Unless they ramp things up significantly, they're not going anywhere.

Still the question here was about potential and they certainly have it. Especially as it relates to contributor earnings. Decent pricing, very limited subscription offering, 50% royalties, etc. I'd gladly trade all of my SS sales for equal sales at Stockfresh and I'd be sitting on considerably more money as a result.

We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams.

Building up to the IPO Jon started to spend more on marketing. However most of shutterstocks growth came before shutterstock kickstarted the IPO, beefed up the search and started the marketing spend machine.

Shutterstock is successful because they:

1. Did not manipulate their searches, they let customers decided which images were successful so the cream of the crop rose to the top and buyers could see this.
2. They kept pricing stagnant and their low pricing attracted customers that did not have a good experiences at other sites. Many of these were IS contributors hit with reduced royalties/sales.
3. They did not pull the underhand tricks from the likes of IS & Fotolia, therefore they did not lose existing contributor/buyers.

EmberMike

« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2014, 15:31 »
+1
We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams...

I didn't forget, it's just not a relevant point anymore. No one can break into this market today without significant marketing spend. If anything, Stockfresh proves that. They have had a good thing going for a while now. Decent prices, simple credit system (no variable dollar-to-credit schemes), nice 50% royalty. There is a lot to like. But that stuff alone isn't enough. The missing piece is marketing.

Jon could do a DIY operation in the past because, well, it was the past; a time in this business where you really could start with nothing and make something out of it. Today, no company, no matter how creative or industrious, is going to compete at a high level if they're not spending on marketing.

I hate to bring up DPC again, but...

That back-cover Shutterstock ad I mentioned earlier? Guess who is on the inside of that back cover...

DPC isn't just a threat because of what they offer. They're a threat because they are putting that offer in front of a lot of potential customers. Stockfresh doesn't do that, so they're not taking a bite out of anyone else's business.

The DIY approach gets you set up. To really compete, though, it doesn't work. Competing in this business comes down to spending money.

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2014, 17:42 »
0
We forget that Jon built and maintained the shutterstock site himself until just a few years ago. He did much of the enterprise marketing himself so it would be unwise to discount small but driven teams...

I didn't forget, it's just not a relevant point anymore. No one can break into this market today without significant marketing spend. If anything, Stockfresh proves that. They have had a good thing going for a while now. Decent prices, simple credit system (no variable dollar-to-credit schemes), nice 50% royalty. There is a lot to like. But that stuff alone isn't enough. The missing piece is marketing.

Jon could do a DIY operation in the past because, well, it was the past; a time in this business where you really could start with nothing and make something out of it. Today, no company, no matter how creative or industrious, is going to compete at a high level if they're not spending on marketing.

I hate to bring up DPC again, but...

That back-cover Shutterstock ad I mentioned earlier? Guess who is on the inside of that back cover...

DPC isn't just a threat because of what they offer. They're a threat because they are putting that offer in front of a lot of potential customers. Stockfresh doesn't do that, so they're not taking a bite out of anyone else's business.

The DIY approach gets you set up. To really compete, though, it doesn't work. Competing in this business comes down to spending money.

To a degree I agree with you it is harder now. However shutterstock was successful because they kept it simple and kept pricing very low. Jon is an absolute tightwad, just ask some of the folks that work for him. This is exactly DPC's strategy now and they are throwing dollars out for marketing.  The net is filled with PR about DPC.

Marketing prices have dropped and shutterstock has in house sales people to target large enterprise customers, which is one of the largest growth areas. When you put these expenses into perspective, advertizing cost have dropped substantially over the last few years, it does not take much to get front and back covers these days.  Sites that innovate and market creatively at low cost and via existing contributors will gain more traction than you might imagine.

When you put micro advertizing cost's into perspective, micro sites spend very little to secure new customers compared to most other industries.

« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2014, 18:31 »
0
Discussion moved from the Boycott DPC thread.

A fair trade agency, with fair royalties is nothing without buyers. There are plenty of honest agencies, problem is they dont have enough buyers and not enough money for marketing.

Before they can sell the files they need the files. Not that hard for us to do these days. At least then they would have a chance to compete with the corporates.

Please show me the massive marketing campaigns? I don't see a massive effort. Why would they need to they are very well established thank you very much. What I see is dozens of millions of dollars from our image value going to a few corporate execs!

Shutterstock spent $56,738,000 USD on sales and marketing in 2013. Get yourself educated please.

Edit: voting down facts doesnt make it go away. Fact is fact. You may not like the answer, thats your problem.

Okay, okay so they spend some money on sales and marketing, mea culpa. However, being quite cynical when it comes to corporate and institutional motives I somehow doubt the veracity of the above figure. There are after all many types of expenditure that could be labeled "sales and marketing". Part of that figure might well be creatively manufactured to maintain a myth about operating costs in order to hide the enormous level of profit.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the substantial sales I get with Shutterstock and do not wish them ill. I would however prefer to receive a fair slice of the value that the market is still willing to pay. Wouldn't you?

You are correct, facts are facts and I don't argue with them when I've confirmed them. I can however make adjustments that change the facts for me as an individual and am starting to do so by first sending my best work to RM agencies, fair trade micro RFs and then as time permits, dump the leftover work to the micro RFs that pay a lower percentage.

By the way, I didn't vote your comment down if that's what you mean by voting down the facts.

Ron

« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2014, 18:35 »
+1
56 million is not some money. And I dont think when you are publicly traded you can be creative with the books that easily. They are being audited.

« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2014, 02:23 »
+4
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2014, 03:23 »
+3
I remember a 1 year old thread where for a great part of us the one to promote was GL Stock Images
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/let's-promote-together-'the-best-contributor-friendly-agency'!-first-time!/msg309167/#msg309167

For me Shutterstock is still the best, they work for them it is normal because it is their business, but it is one of the few site (maybe the only one) working for us too.

Ideally I find Pond5 a good one too, if only photos sales could grow a little.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2014, 06:17 »
+2
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 06:24 by ShadySue »


« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2014, 06:26 »
+1
I want to be able to set different prices for every one of my pics. After all, contributors are the only ones who really knows what their pictures are really worth.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2014, 06:30 »
+3
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?


I agree. Awful name.

« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2014, 06:32 »
+1
Regarding stockfresh, while they do pay more by percentage, their prices are too low. So we net only a meager amount more when compared to other sites. They would need to do more along the lines of shutterstock licensing to interest me. That being said I like the pricing of graphic leftovers much better and if they also implemented a higher paying licensing scheme they would be my vote over sf.


Edit...yes the name graphic leftovers implies sloppy seconds. Maybe we can propose some new names for them to consider. GRAPHIC Marketplace ;D
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 06:36 by Mantis »

« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2014, 06:34 »
0
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?

It was initially a place to place your leftover work from client projects.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2014, 06:40 »
0
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?

It was initially a place to place your leftover work from client projects.

Yes, I remember that from when they started up. Still doesn't make it a good name, IMO.
If I see a site with the word 'overstock' in other contexts, I expect the products to be up tot the quality expected from the brand, but certainly cheap.

« Reply #47 on: June 05, 2014, 06:41 »
+3
Which is why it is GLStockImages now.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: June 05, 2014, 06:42 »
0
Which is why it is GLStockImages now.
Fairy Nuff.

« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2014, 07:31 »
0
Yesterday I applied to Graphic Leftovers. I never heard of them before but I was surprised by the "Fair Trade Contributor Site" logo they have.  Never saw this before either but it seems worthwhile to give some support.

Lots of info here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/graphic-leftovers
Personally, I find the actual name offputting. Who wants to buy leftovers?
Or is there some other cultural/artistic illusion I'm missing?


Thanks for the link


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2569 Views
Last post July 15, 2012, 22:44
by ruxpriencdiam
1 Replies
2439 Views
Last post July 03, 2015, 13:54
by Semmick Photo
4 Replies
2283 Views
Last post January 30, 2018, 15:03
by ShadySue
17 Replies
4256 Views
Last post May 16, 2022, 12:24
by cascoly
9 Replies
2944 Views
Last post November 15, 2023, 10:22
by MadMax

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors