Thank you digital cameras.....LOL

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 19:15
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone!  All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Nope, Getty was the downfall of the stock industry. By paying such low percentages to contributors they left the door open to competitors to sell licenses for much less while still compensating contributors, allowing them to outweigh their lower prices with much higher volume. So I guess more generally excessive greed is to blame.

No one is to blame it is an inevitable consequence of the environment we live in if Shutterstock or Istock hadn't done it someone else would.

Solution:  Everyone takes their work to sites that treat contributors fairly or as fair as possible, Pond5 50% and you get to set your own price and Videoblocks, while Videoblocks locks you in at $49 you get 100% commission, I am on SS and that was/is in the hops of them being a powerhouse that there would be a good sales volume despite lower commissions but the others? who pay peanuts? sorry, not worth my time and it's also about respect, we pay all our own business expenses, gear, gas, vehicle repairs, and equipment lifecycle replacement plus our time? and to peanuts?

I can only speak about video but I only consider Pond 5 and Videoblocks to be worthy players at least for me and for the type of content I have.

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 11, 2015, 11:54
No one is to blame it is an inevitable consequence of the environment we live in if Shutterstock or Istock hadn't done it someone else would.

That's the old 'unlocked car' argument:  that poor kid who stole your car isn't really to blame.  Well, of course he is.   

In my book, SS and IS have been the driving forces in the devaluation of stock imagery, and the race to the bottom on price. 

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 11, 2015, 09:09

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 19:15
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone!  All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Nope, Getty was the downfall of the stock industry. By paying such low percentages to contributors they left the door open to competitors to sell licenses for much less while still compensating contributors, allowing them to outweigh their lower prices with much higher volume. So I guess more generally excessive greed is to blame.

At least istock tried very hard to increase prices (wich, btw, was heavily criticised here by some people). The only increase in prices that I remember from SS is when they decided to give 25 instead of 30 images per day with the subscripcion.

Quote from: loop on November 11, 2015, 23:32

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 11, 2015, 09:09

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 19:15
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone!  All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

I think Pauws99 is closer to the correct analysis than you are but still far too optimistic.  The only reason we are getting pitiful payments and buyers are buying at bargain-basement prices is because no company has yet figured out how to pay us nothing!

But that will come. It's easy to poo-poo hobbyists but I am sure they will provide the quality most publishers require from microstock. This week, admittedly, is not the greatest but I am usually amazed by the photographs of Scotland at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34744629 where contributors receive no fee, only the 'privilege' of saying 'my photo was on the BBC'.

Chris Anderson's books, The Long Tail and Free have not been as hyped in recent years but the central argument still holds true: what people expect from the internet is free content.

And partly, in our case, this is to do, with the ubiquity of images. I remember as a kid looking forward to the Sunday Times and Observer magazines on a Sunday which might have a series by Eve Arnold in what (at the time!!) seemed like high definition after the rare and blurred printed images in the black and white press during the week. A few weeks ago I was speaking to a journalist who spoke about images now as 'punctuation' within a story so nothing, please, too striking which detracts from the words.

Shutterstock raised their subscription prices - started at $89.99 a month in 2004 and went up. They added per image sales, which were higher priced than subscriptions - about $10 each in a 5-pack. All the SOD sales are at higher prices than the subscriptions or on demand.

iStock did fine raising prices at first - and there wasn't a problem with that at the beginning. Vetta was a bit of a shock to the system, but it was tightly edited and it was clear why you were paying more.

When Getty started dumping a bunch of schlock into Agency and jacked those prices sky high, you ended up with images that SS would have rejected at insane prices  on iStock and the buyer was left with no clear notion as to why images were at the prices they were. You don't pay hundreds of dollars to license a fruit slice.

iStock was competing just fine with Shutterstock for a good long time - each had its model and pricing structure and each found a place in the market.

I get that many exclusives don't like Shutterstock, but blaming Getty's demolition of the iStock business on anyone but Getty is just not supported by any of the data.

lol...I totally agree, but Shutterstock is totally evil now.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 11, 2015, 09:09

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 19:15
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone!  All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Nope, Getty was the downfall of the stock industry. By paying such low percentages to contributors they left the door open to competitors to sell licenses for much less while still compensating contributors, allowing them to outweigh their lower prices with much higher volume. So I guess more generally excessive greed is to blame.

No really it is Shutterstock.  Shutterstock is not the friend of the contributor in any way what so ever!

Shutterstock paying out more money than any other agency.........the swines! Get real folks this is a capitalist marketplace.

I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive.  I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs.  As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy.  I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.

Quote from: Ariene on February 25, 2015, 14:25

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 25, 2015, 13:26
How can you know who are your customers on microstocks (except the [few] one you are in direct contact with)?

It's easy - I see their publications here and around

I find that Google image search works quite well... paste in the URL of the preview of your image on SS and it finds the real thing wherever it is on the web. Of course it doesn't pick up use of your images in hard copy, but it's useful for seeing where it has been used online.

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 12, 2015, 07:08
Shutterstock paying out more money than any other agency.........the swines! Get real folks this is a capitalist marketplace.

+1 and if I only sold on the 50/50 sites I'd be out of business. It's a nice thought but they don't make same money. I stay on SS. Show Me The Money someplace else and I'll leave SS. Same why I stay on IS with the mean arrogant people like Lobo who are the face of how IS thinks of us as their slaves to talk down and insult.

SS at least speaks with some respect.

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 13, 2015, 15:13
SS at least speaks with some respect.

"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.

shutterstock stopped respecting their contributing members the day they stopped all communication and left us in the dark about pretty much everything

sharpshot, good sale, probably gross partner sale right, so not really 600 but more 180, still good, i just never understood the niche of posting alamy sales in gross figures

Quote from: Microstockphoto on November 13, 2015, 18:00
sharpshot, good sale, probably gross partner sale right, so not really 600 but more 180, still good, i just never understood the niche of posting alamy sales in gross figures

No, they sold it for almost $1,200 and I got 50% of that.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2015, 15:40

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 13, 2015, 15:13
SS at least speaks with some respect.

"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.

lmao they respect us so much they give a super large preview so you can actually download to print a 5by7 print for free;
you sound like that comedian who says "what respect???"
only it's the reverse, "... i am a well-respected ss contributor... they literally give my work away!!..hip hip hooray!!!"

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2015, 15:40

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 13, 2015, 15:13
SS at least speaks with some respect.

"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.

Not totally wrong (other than the permanently repeated fact that shutterstock is not all subs and the real RPD is higher).

But "It's unsustainable if we only keep 80% of the sales price of your work, we need to cut the commissions" ain't much better.

Quote from: dirkr on November 13, 2015, 20:23

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2015, 15:40

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 13, 2015, 15:13
SS at least speaks with some respect.

"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.

Not totally wrong (other than the permanently repeated fact that shutterstock is not all subs and the real RPD is higher).

Not at all the point I was making.
I was talking about the most common price/compensation at SS ("as little as"), which is derisory.

Quote
But "It's unsustainable if we only keep 80% of the sales price of your work, we need to cut the commissions" ain't much better.

Who said it was?

This is the SS forum, and the thread is about the overdue raise at SS.
The point is that the minimum price of subs at SS should have been raised years ago.
The fact that it hasn't been shouts loud and clear about the amount of respect SS has for its contributors.

Quote from: sharpshot on November 12, 2015, 11:43
I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive.  I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs.  As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy.  I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.

Sharpshoot, why? What may be working for you is not necessarily working for the masses. The industry HAS gone down the toilet, with Shutterstock being the exception for the most part.  I will admit I am happy about the occasional big sale but without those (and I believe many contributors, though I don't want to speak for everyone) I am way down on subs, general OD's and almost never anymore $28 EL's. So I would say SS is, to a degree, contributing to the race to the bottom. They also lowered 4K from $399 to $299. They were the first to do it.

But, I am glad you are seeing some good sales. And it is nice to know that in some capacities SS is still fighting for some juicy sales.   

Quote from: Mantis on November 13, 2015, 23:26

Quote from: sharpshot on November 12, 2015, 11:43
I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive.  I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs.  As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy.  I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.

Sharpshoot, why? What may be working for you is not necessarily working for the masses. The industry HAS gone down the toilet, with Shutterstock being the exception for the most part.  I will admit I am happy about the occasional big sale but without those (and I believe many contributors, though I don't want to speak for everyone) I am way down on subs, general OD's and almost never anymore $28 EL's. So I would say SS is, to a degree, contributing to the race to the bottom. They also lowered 4K from $399 to $299. They were the first to do it.

But, I am glad you are seeing some good sales. And it is nice to know that in some capacities SS is still fighting for some juicy sales.   

well said. someone else here said the same thing a while back on another thread...
stockastic i think... that our single sales are the only thing that rescue us from a really
bad performance compared to other years.

i think that is so true. also, the single sales of large 80 to 102 are less than when it started
and even if you take the 28 bucks singles, i used to get it more often than the past year(s).
but thanks to one client who paid 80+ to 100+ my month have been rescued this way.

so yes, mantis you are +100% correct