MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why is Shutterstock sellng our images for 1Cent each??  (Read 23141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2013, 09:30 »
-5
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.

sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?

we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)

Its exactly what I expect of him. Complain about agencies, and sharpshot will tell you he has no sympathy for you. Its the second time he is taking sides with the agencies after bad news for contributors.
I think you'll find plenty of examples here when I've been against what the sites are doing.  I'm the mug that deactivated images while other people here were uploading them :)  I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sorry if sometimes I don't agree with all the other contributors here.  It would be a bit strange if we all agreed on everything wouldn't it?

 Its not about your opinion, its about rubbing salt.


« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2013, 09:48 »
+1
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know

I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?

I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they?  That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota.  Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that.  They have to pay 154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year.  With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.

If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before.  A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards.  If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.

« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2013, 09:52 »
0
you keep on forgetting the main issue here, which is devaluing our work, stop and think for a while if this is good for stock photography, I am done trying to explain it :)

« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2013, 09:54 »
0
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.

sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?

we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)

Its exactly what I expect of him. Complain about agencies, and sharpshot will tell you he has no sympathy for you. Its the second time he is taking sides with the agencies after bad news for contributors.
I think you'll find plenty of examples here when I've been against what the sites are doing.  I'm the mug that deactivated images while other people here were uploading them :)  I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sorry if sometimes I don't agree with all the other contributors here.  It would be a bit strange if we all agreed on everything wouldn't it?

 Its not about your opinion, its about rubbing salt.
If you really think like that, just put me on ignore, that's what I'll do with you, if this carries on.

« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2013, 10:02 »
+6
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2013, 10:06 »
0
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

yes and? leaving BigStock?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2013, 10:09 »
0
Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
AIUI, iStock was the original micro model, and I don't think minimising costs for the provider or a sustainable profit margin were even thought of at its creation, which was as a free sharing site, subsequently charging to offset the cost of the hosting.
The rest came later.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 10:18 by ShadySue »

Ron

« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2013, 10:14 »
+1
you keep on forgetting the main issue here, which is devaluing our work, stop and think for a while if this is good for stock photography, I am done trying to explain it :)
Luis I get the point you and Sue are making. I dont care if they pay 157 GBP only to DL one image. The fact that the images are discounted to 1 cent is disturbing.

« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2013, 10:16 »
+3
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

yes and? leaving BigStock?

I no longer upload to any of my 5 sites, mostly due to many of the shrinking-income complaints noted here. I'm just content to keep reaping commissions as they come in. I totally agree with Sharp on this issue. I'll add that none of us has any upfront investments in any of the sites,  and no say in their management decisions. Like us, they're doing what they need to survive. I don't begrudge them whatever marketing strategy they choose.

« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2013, 10:22 »
0
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

yes and? leaving BigStock?

I no longer upload to any of my 5 sites, mostly due to many of the shrinking-income complaints noted here. I'm just content to keep reaping commissions as they come in. I totally agree with Sharp on this issue. I'll add that none of us has any upfront investments in any of the sites,  and no say in their management decisions. Like us, they're doing what they need to survive. I don't begrudge them whatever marketing strategy they choose.

I get it, you will be happy with 1% because we cannot control what agencies do, that is a cool statement as well ;D

I believe there should be an opt in/out for this kind of promotions, that is the minimum/maximum we can accept!

« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2013, 10:24 »
+4
I largely agree with Sharpshot. Provided the discount is coming out of the agency's cut then we don't have too much to complain about.

We know that SS spends $30M+ annually on 'marketing' so maybe this is one way of targeting a certain segment of customers. It might simply be a more direct and effective means of signing up new subscription customers than say all those pay-per-click adverts on Google. In effect it means that BigStock will be paying us, the contributors, rather than Google, for their advertising.

We also know that SS has always tested out new products, price increases, etc. at closely-defined geographical areas. Maybe this is more of the same? Maybe they know that they are under-represented in the UK (where possibly TS is their main competitor) and this is their way of targeting those potential customers.

The clever thing about this deal is that a potential customer who is already a subscriber to a competitor would not feel the need for their existing subscription to expire before signing up. With that level of discount they could comfortably afford to run both subscriptions together and then later choose which to continue with.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 10:28 by gostwyck »

« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2013, 10:26 »
+3
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

yes and? leaving BigStock?

I left. When my RPD dropped to 50 cents, the alarms went off.

« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2013, 10:30 »
+3
The problem is that BS doesn't need to lower our cut - they already did that (at least for most of us who don't sell 50,000 per year). Sure, if you are on the bridge, they are stringing you along for another 6 months, but if they can move enough buyers from SS to BS (where they pay less), they will make more $ and we will make less. They keep saying that the BS customers don't come from SS, but I am doubtful that is 100% true. They figure that taking a short term loss (or maybe just breaking even instead of 75%) to move more buyers to BS (from SS and from the competition) is worth it. For them - yes, for me - no, since BS is about the cheapest paying sub site.

« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2013, 10:37 »
+2
there is not anything clever in this promotion, they are mainly undercutting SS and all other sites we contribute to, saying that microstock is even cheaper than most buyers believe isn't the right attitude in order to maintain a sustainable business, after a while agencies will cut us again because buyers are heading to the 2 pennies/picture more often and it is becoming unsustainable for them to keep the previous royalties like we were doing millions before

everybody opening their personal stores are often attacked for lowering the price of their work and now we accept this bargain from BigStock believing it will be great for us!

« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2013, 10:51 »
+2
I pretty much agree with luissantos84 on this.  We can speculate about promotional schemes, bringing in "new buyers", and how we're holding a line at 38 cents (!) but at the end of the day, what's left is the steady devaluation of imagery in the minds of the buyers. 

And we have now officially reached the bottom.  Congratulations, SS.

« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2013, 10:58 »
+3
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02"  they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year.  They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.

From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.

« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2013, 11:29 »
+2
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know

I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?

I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they?  That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota.  Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that.  They have to pay 154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year.  With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.

If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before.  A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards.  If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.

Shutterstock and Bigstock are the same company.  They do not even mention Bigstock in the SEC filings any more and the old management is long gone.

Why do you suppose they ran this "promotion" through Bigstock in lieu of Shuttterstock?

If you want to make the race to the bottom easier for this wallstreet crowd; leave your images on Bigstock for them to exploit at will. At these prices you have to know that .38 royalty will last just long enough for them to get the content they need for the demographic they are targeting.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 12:09 by gbalex »


« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2013, 11:38 »
-5
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02"  they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year.  They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.

From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.

Exactly.

Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.

A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.

« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2013, 11:39 »
+4
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.

yes and? leaving BigStock?

I no longer upload to any of my 5 sites, mostly due to many of the shrinking-income complaints noted here. I'm just content to keep reaping commissions as they come in. I totally agree with Sharp on this issue. I'll add that none of us has any upfront investments in any of the sites,  and no say in their management decisions. Like us, they're doing what they need to survive. I don't begrudge them whatever marketing strategy they choose.

You must have read the SEC filings, they are doing far more than surviving and using Bigstock to undercut Shutterstock and the rest of the micros to gain market share is not only unnecessary; it devalues the assets SS has on it books, the assets which SS contributors produce using our own funds and resources.

Trust me if SS had to pay to produce it's own tangible assets, they would take great care to preserve their worth.

In fact if SS had to pay to produce it's own assets they would not be priced at the low levels they are today!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 12:07 by gbalex »

« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2013, 11:43 »
+4
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:05 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2013, 11:51 »
0
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02"  they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year.  They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.

From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.

Exactly.

Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.

A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.

so the reality we need to understand is that our work needs to be priced as cheap as possible in order to sell more? or in fact less because buyers don't download all their quota? I guess we need to find a sweet spot but BigStock promotion is very far from that

might be a little OT but weren't we unhappy with iStock's removal of photo+ collection and also the pricing slash?

« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2013, 12:09 »
-1
I hope Symbiostock is a big success

Lots of hearts have gone into Symbiostock. Anyone who dared to question whether it is going to be a success would certainly see their post voted into invisibility.

« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2013, 12:12 »
+2
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know

I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?

I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they?  That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota.  Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that.  They have to pay 154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year.  With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.

If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before.  A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards.  If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.

Shutterstock and Bigstock are the same company.  They do not even mention Bigstock in the SEC reports any more and the old management is long gone.

Why do you suppose they ran this "promotion" through Bigstock in lieu of Shuttterstock?

If you want to make the race to the bottom easier for this wallstreet crowd; leave your images on Bigstock for them to exploit at will. At these prices you have to know that .38 royalty will last just long enough for them to get the content they need for the demographic they are targeting.
I've removed my portfolio or deactivated all my best images from several sites.  The problem is, not many others do it.  So all I'm doing is making it easier for the people that carry on using those sites.  Good luck to anyone who leaves BigStock over this.  In my experience, it makes no difference, other than the earnings loss for the contributor.  Don't blame me if the $0.38 goes, I did try to do something but it was absolutely pointless.  There's too many people that couldn't care less about their commission.  I wish that wasn't true but it is.

Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is build up the Symbiostock network?  That seems a better option than trying to stop what seems inevitable with the microstock sites.  Hopefully if there's an option for us to sell direct, the sites will see that they can't keep cutting commissions.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2013, 12:13 »
0
I hope Symbiostock is a big success

Lots of hearts have gone into Symbiostock. Anyone who dared to question whether it is going to be a success would certainly see their post voted into invisibility.
Huh?

« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2013, 12:29 »
0
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know

I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?

I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they?  That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota.  Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that.  They have to pay 154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year.  With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.

If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before.  A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards.  If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.

Shutterstock and Bigstock are the same company.  They do not even mention Bigstock in the SEC reports any more and the old management is long gone.

Why do you suppose they ran this "promotion" through Bigstock in lieu of Shuttterstock?

If you want to make the race to the bottom easier for this wallstreet crowd; leave your images on Bigstock for them to exploit at will. At these prices you have to know that .38 royalty will last just long enough for them to get the content they need for the demographic they are targeting.
I've removed my portfolio or deactivated all my best images from several sites.  The problem is, not many others do it.  So all I'm doing is making it easier for the people that carry on using those sites.  Good luck to anyone who leaves BigStock over this.  In my experience, it makes no difference, other than the earnings loss for the contributor.  Don't blame me if the $0.38 goes, I did try to do something but it was absolutely pointless.  There's too many people that couldn't care less about their commission.  I wish that wasn't true but it is.

Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is build up the Symbiostock network?  That seems a better option than trying to stop what seems inevitable with the microstock sites.  Hopefully if there's an option for us to sell direct, the sites will see that they can't keep cutting commissions.

If we leave our images on these sites their value will drop.

Think about this for a moment

What type of contributor did they pick for Offset?  Was their work available for sale on any of the Microsites and is the quality of their content superior to the HCV images on the micros?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
13024 Views
Last post July 12, 2008, 14:36
by Silvercat
2 Replies
3541 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 04:12
by DanP68
7 Replies
3850 Views
Last post May 08, 2009, 08:03
by gostwyck
2 Replies
3495 Views
Last post November 08, 2009, 20:07
by eppic
35 Replies
12512 Views
Last post June 02, 2012, 15:05
by wut

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors