pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: When does common sense say quit ??  (Read 15239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2014, 19:34 »
0
Leo is right - this is a case of over supply pure and simple.  Large volumes + talent can make money but probably not enough for the volume and talent involved.  It's a strange market that mostly has the artistic merit of an advertising jingle and populated largely by amateurs who would probably produce much more interesting work without what is considered "quality" in the stock world.  To answer the original question from the amateur point of view, when it ceases to be interesting.


« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2014, 19:46 »
+5
It's a thoroughly distorted market where the middleman has gained total control.  When a middleman is adding little value while charging excessive markup, 'disintermediation' should occur.  But the physical nature of this market (i.e. the internet) has so far prevented buyers and suppliers from making direct contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation

« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 19:52 by stockastic »

Rinderart

« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2014, 02:29 »
-1
+1

grey1

    This user is banned.
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2014, 03:08 »
0
It's a thoroughly distorted market where the middleman has gained total control.  When a middleman is adding little value while charging excessive markup, 'disintermediation' should occur.  But the physical nature of this market (i.e. the internet) has so far prevented buyers and suppliers from making direct contact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation


What a good post! and how true. I can not even think of any other business with the exception of the automotive industry where the middleman has gained so much power.
One could ofcourse argue that without them there would not be any micro industry.

« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2014, 06:50 »
+2
^^Supermarkets are middlemen and one could probably think of a hundred other business models where the middle man dominates the market; utility supplies, real estate, tourism. Microstock is puny in comparison.

I'd like a higher commission and I think the agencies take the p*ss but the value for me is in marketing and distribution. I wouldn't have anywhere near the revenue stream I currently generate without it. Competition is too fierce and I'm not that good/unique....very few are.

« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2014, 07:42 »
+2
""the middleman has gained so much power.""

I have thought for a while that symbiostock and stocksy could force a shift in the opposite direction for agencies. Stealing contributors from the big 4 would not take much.  Symbiostock almost hit the nail but lacks the front end web page, advertising and image screeners.  Stocksy has it but has a style and a self limiting mindset that keeps it from gaining a lot of great contributors.  Perhaps a mainstream (contractual) 60/40 partnership could derail the current middleman model and cause the masses of contributors to jump ship.  It just seems that in the crowded arena of agencies a massive need still exist for the right one.  No agency has hit the bullseye yet and any agency that sells all or part of itself or devalues itself with partner programs is just cashing in.

Everyone loves SS, but they decided to give profits to investors.  Everyone hates IS, but they actually pay better than SS (at least I think, 15%vs 25 cents).  IS could have been king had it not stumbled it's way through the last few years like crack addicts doing brain surgery with a machette.  I believe there is a massive need for the right agency.

With that said,  Shutterstock traded it's profits for a one time sale of 1/2 the company. A well known photographer left one agency and went exclusive to another and then started a crowd sourcing business. Another well known  (and highly respected) photographer changed his direction also.  This all indicates that those with insight see some kind of writing on the wall,  maybe it is a big sign that reads  "CASH IN NOW".  But maybe that could lead to stability.  I imagine that world famous photographer has a smaller staff now or will shortly.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 08:05 by old crow »

« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2014, 08:44 »
+3
I don't think the SS flotation indicated anything negative about the market from the agency's point of view. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep building their market - the problem is purely for the suppliers. If there are four times as many of us next year and we are all making half as much as we did, then that would mean the agency had doubled its earnings.
Falling earnings for suppliers actually benefit the agencies, who hang on to money longer before having to pay out.

« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2014, 09:30 »
-1
Everyone loves SS, but they decided to give profits to investors. 

How? No dividends have been paid and neither is there a date for when that situation might change.

On the contrary SS have been using investors' money to expand their own operation as well as ours.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2014, 09:55 »
+1
And expand their contributor base across the globe as well, I doubt we'll experience any more growth in sales.

« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2014, 10:16 »
+2
I can tell you why people love SS.

Shutterstock raised payouts ( a while ago, but has not lowered it since).
Income is predictable, if you work harder you can earn more.
Shutterstock is predictable.
The shutterstock site is easy to use.
Shutterstock doesnt lie.

Contrary to
Being lied to, being preyed on, being manipulated and abused with every message you recieved in the mail.

There is just so much difference.
It really is like the good guys and the bad guys.



« Reply #60 on: January 26, 2014, 10:24 »
+4
I don't love SS.

« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2014, 10:31 »
+2
Me neither. But I respect them.

« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2014, 10:44 »
+2
Me neither. But I respect them.

Yes, it's like being a professional and working with professionals, isn't it? ;)

« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2014, 12:54 »
-1
I don't think the SS flotation indicated anything negative about the market from the agency's point of view. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep building their market - the problem is purely for the suppliers. If there are four times as many of us next year and we are all making half as much as we did, then that would mean the agency had doubled its earnings.
Falling earnings for suppliers actually benefit the agencies, who hang on to money longer before having to pay out.


Downloads per image on SS have actually risen from from 1.094 downloads per image in 2011 to 1.169 downloads per image in 2013.
While Revenue per download for Shutterstock SSTK rose from  $2.10 in 2011 to  $2.35 in 2013. 

It is telling how long term contributors with more experience, better equipment and often times better content are seeing revenue decreases while at the same time Revenue per download @ SSTK rose by $.25 cents.

It is also telling that many long term contributors are complaining about experiencing large drops when they should be seeing an increase in sales per image uploaded. 
                                                    Three Months Ended September 30,       
                                                                   2011      2013
Number of paid downloads                           14.8      25.4
Revenue per download                              $ 2.10   $ 2.35
Images in our collection (end of period)        16.2      29.7

                                                                  Three Months Ended September 30,       
Images in our collection (end of period)        16.2      29.7
Number of paid downloads                           14.8      25.4
                                                                  1.094   1.169

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1874040

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1759499

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2014, 13:30 »
0
Common sense tells me to quit when working on my illustrations no longer generates enough income to justify the hours I spend on it.

Last year I got a 2% raise at my "real" job and a 100% raise in microstock. This year I hope to get a 50% raise in microstock. My "raise" as a percentage of my microstock earnings will decrease each year, but it'll take several years before it slows to what I get in the "real world." That is, if things continue as they have been. But who knows? With the increased competition it may plummet.

Goofy

« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2014, 13:52 »
0
"Common sense tells me to quit when working on my illustrations no longer generates enough income to justify the hours I spend on it."

If that was the case for my images I would have stopped a long time ago... ???



grey1

    This user is banned.
« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2014, 14:06 »
+2
It generates quite a bit in my pockets but to be honest its getting tedious and boring to constantly be reminded of how great and good they are, kind and generous.
Its just another picture agency thats all and should bad times hit them we would be the first ones to lose out. :-\ sorry but thats the way it is.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
64 Replies
23322 Views
Last post February 05, 2010, 08:50
by PenelopeB
11 Replies
4338 Views
Last post July 09, 2012, 11:07
by ShadySue
3 Replies
5864 Views
Last post December 01, 2015, 14:21
by Symbiostock Official
7 Replies
3385 Views
Last post January 02, 2020, 05:01
by Tenebroso
5 Replies
2355 Views
Last post July 16, 2022, 22:25
by sgoodwin4813

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors