interesting read, don´t give up after a paragraph or two

http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/truth-about-microstock-revealed-shutterstocks-ipo/

He is spot on, no one makes a living at micro, no one should be contributing to it. If you do you are evil and hate art. Everyone stop contributing to the "cancer" that is microstock.
Thank you, that is all.

Quote from: Microbius on July 03, 2012, 14:21
He is spot on, no one makes a living at micro, no one should be contributing to it. If you do you are evil and hate art. Everyone stop contributing to the "cancer" that is microstock.
Thank you, that is all.

but in the end he tell us to write a letter to SS asking for better pricing etc..

What does he mean by that: "but there are affordable ways to do this.   Several off the shelf stock photo website software packages exist ranging from free to a few hundred dollars.  Many more photographers are starting to take advantage of such solutions."

Anyone around here "faceless and mute"?

Must be hard to photograph without a face... gee we're so talented.

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2012, 13:43
...don´t give up after a paragraph or two..

I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month.  Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Quote from: sharpshot on July 03, 2012, 14:58

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 03, 2012, 13:43
...don´t give up after a paragraph or two..

I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month.  Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Quote from: cthoman on July 03, 2012, 16:09
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Well, if they said that in the article, then they (and you) did get that part right.

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 16:12

Quote from: cthoman on July 03, 2012, 16:09
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Well, if they said that in the article, then they (and you) did get that part right.

I might have cherry picked a bit to get that. 

Although, it did seem like it was mostly complaining about subs which would make sense to single out SS.

I sure wouldn't complain if subs prices would go up, since they're a steal and out commissions as well. Former will happen sooner or later, the latter probably never (I mean not more than the price increase will increase our royalties, for instance prices and royalties up by 20%).

Quote from: cthoman on July 03, 2012, 16:17

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 16:12

Quote from: cthoman on July 03, 2012, 16:09
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Well, if they said that in the article, then they (and you) did get that part right.

I might have cherry picked a bit to get that. 

Although, it did seem like it was mostly complaining about subs which would make sense to single out SS.

Understood. 

Quote from: cthoman on July 03, 2012, 16:09
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

I agree and seriously think they could come up with a better deal but after so many crap from all agencies why would they?

June 0.52$
All time 0.49$ (very few EL)

1.83$ left to last level

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 16:10
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download

Quote from: sjlocke on July 03, 2012, 17:44

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 16:10
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download

No no - you got it all wrong!!

I've had 11 cents and I know others have had 9 cents. 19 cents is what we're all dreaming of

Quote from: sjlocke on July 03, 2012, 17:44

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 16:10
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download

You mean $.07 don't you?  

People always do seem to grab the numbers that appear to make their points though. It would be nice if we had and people used more meaningful statistics - like the average or mean or something.

Quote from: pancaketom on July 03, 2012, 19:20

Quote from: sjlocke on July 03, 2012, 17:44

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 16:10
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download

You mean $.07 don't you?  

People always do seem to grab the numbers that appear to make their points though. It would be nice if we had and people used more meaningful statistics - like the average or mean or something.

the serious ones do, not this case for sure

Quote from: jsnover on July 03, 2012, 19:18
19 cents is what we're all dreaming of

What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 19:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

Quote from: pancaketom on July 03, 2012, 19:20
You mean $.07 don't you?  

People always do seem to grab the numbers that appear to make their points though. It would be nice if we had and people used more meaningful statistics - like the average or mean or something.

I don't have concrete numbers, but I would guess most independents average somewhere between $.50 and $2 per sale which is about 25%-30% of the actual sale price.

With an average of $1 at 30% royalty.

Quote from: cclapper on July 03, 2012, 20:00

Quote from: click_click on July 03, 2012, 19:56
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

or maybe the blogger is actually luissantos84 

Just kidding.

Well traffic is useless if you cannot convert it into business.

This way I learned to stay away from another blogger. Big deal.

People are funny. There are more threads on this forum complaining about low commissions and poor treatment by agencies than any other subject and yet when someone outside this little group says the same thing, everyone jumps to defend the agency and call the author pathetic.

My sales to revenue ratio on Shutterstock last month was .397 cents per download. So in some cases his figures are not far off. But forget the stats and consider his point. All he's saying is that contributors that submit to microstock deserve more than they get.

That's all. If you believe you get paid fairly for the quality of your work and the time you put in. And you think that the agencies deserve to take the lion's share for representing you, then maybe the author is a _________ (nasty word).

I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Quote from: digitalexpression on July 03, 2012, 20:32
People are funny. There are more threads on this forum complaining about low commissions and poor treatment by agencies than any other subject and yet when someone outside this little group says the same thing, everyone jumps to defend the agency and call the author pathetic.

My sales to revenue ratio on Shutterstock last month was .397 cents per download. So in some cases his figures are not far off. But forget the stats and consider his point. All he's saying is that contributors that submit to microstock deserve more than they get.

That's all. If you believe you get paid fairly for the quality of your work and the time you put in. And you think that the agencies deserve to take the lion's share for representing you, then maybe the author is a _________ (nasty word).

I presume you're addressing my statement from before.

In all fairness I ask you to name one agency that does everything right. Obviously we are bitching about changes in the microstock industry as 99% are to the disadvantage of the contributor but please keep in mind that no macro agency has improved contributor royalties either.

All stock shooters sit in the same boat - getting lower commissions.

To blame the micros for that is just naive.

His reasoning is beyond my comprehension.

He doesn't appear to be talking from experience (unless his experience with the micros is rather poor - hence his portfolio must suck).

Pulling numbers out of the air like that is like claiming that every Getty shooter is getting only $5 through distributor sales.

As with any business, the vast majority won't be in it for long but the ones who get the hang of it can make a living.

It's pretty easy, he should just shut up if he doesn't know what he is talking about.

That's why I said it's pathetic. Throwing out claims with no facts to base them on is quite unprofessional.