MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions  (Read 28879 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2015, 12:34 »
0
They'd have to double royalties for me to even glance at it, which will never happen. And since we all agreed to their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month (backlash after the DPC fiasco), it would be nearly impossible to go non-exclusive again later.

With my port they would have to at least quadruple my SS sales for me to have a $200-$500 a month gain. I would not go exclusive just to break even, there would have to be an advantage for me. You are right about going exclusive then back to non exclusive and so is Jo Ann.  In my opinion, lots of industry flux going on and I'd rather play the wait and see game at this time.

I guess they'd also have to add boosting in search results, like iStock, plus inclusion in Premier Select and Offset. And get rid of that agreement about removing images, whcih makes it literally impossible for you to leave. Once you're down to 9 images you can no longer remove 10% of your portfolio. Even then I'd be really, really hesitant.


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2015, 12:37 »
+4
I would probably go exclusive, but I don't think they're willing to offer higher royalties just yet. They are 70% of my revenue and growing so I think it would be worth it. If enough contributors went exclusive, other agencies would be seriously affected and customers would also move to SS.
Do you honestly think a near-monopoly - with any company - would be good for contributors?

« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2015, 13:13 »
0
their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month

It's actually 10% in 90 days  :(

are you talking about fotolia?

no, shutterstock.

« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2015, 13:16 »
+2

I guess they'd also have to add boosting in search results, like iStock, plus inclusion in Premier Select and Offset. And get rid of that agreement about removing images, whcih makes it literally impossible for you to leave. Once you're down to 9 images you can no longer remove 10% of your portfolio. Even then I'd be really, really hesitant.

you can. it's either 10% or 100 images, whichever is greater

Fudio

« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2015, 13:47 »
0
If it was just a friendly, incentive driven offer to submit future content exclusively then no, I don't think I would accept. I've always been one to hedge my bets and I like the idea of multiple agencies. However, if SS suddenly changed their long standing policy and insisted that new content be submitted exclusively then I literally could not afford to refuse. I don't think it's necessarily off the table for SS either...what a game changer that would be.

objowl

« Reply #30 on: June 24, 2015, 14:08 »
+1
Exclusivity would not be compatible to run along side Shutterstocks Premier Select service, though it could make sense to offer it to Premier Select contributors.  So unless you are one of the chosen few, which none of you are, you are engaged in a pointless discussion again.

« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2015, 15:48 »
+5
Never, shutterstock's business strategy is detrimental to the entire market and undermines the value of our assets.

Shutterstock has announce they are lowering the price of 4K clips by One Third
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-4k-price-change-to-199/

Shutterstock publicly admits that they have purposely chosen not to raise prices as a business strategy to gain market share. Shutterstock has also admitted that they will continue to price undercut the competition as a long term business road path.

Shutterstock's long term price undercutting strategy has negatively impacted micro pricing and subscription strategy for the entire industry.

"We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow."


Snip
Duck Swartz

So whats changed in the marketplace thats giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years

So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.

We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
Modify message

« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2015, 16:01 »
+4
if u had asked this question a year ago, before all the absurdities, i would be the biggest cheerleader to be exclusive with ss.
but now, with like other ppl even the longest time contributors all saying the drop in earning is getting worse and worse...
i would not want to risk putting my trust in ss.
they flip switch, limit dls once you make a big sales, have trusted managers quit,etc..
all reminding me of istock before they went bottoms-up.
no, not unless Oringer turns around and show some of his uprightness that made ss #1
ie before he sold shares ...
i would say pretty soon we would all be left without any good agency in microstock.
i would say, start looking for a dayjob or a new outlet to sell your wares

« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2015, 16:19 »
+4
if u had asked this question a year ago, before all the absurdities, i would be the biggest cheerleader to be exclusive with ss.
but now, with like other ppl even the longest time contributors all saying the drop in earning is getting worse and worse...
i would not want to risk putting my trust in ss.
they flip switch, limit dls once you make a big sales, have trusted managers quit,etc..

all reminding me of istock before they went bottoms-up.
no, not unless Oringer turns around and show some of his uprightness that made ss #1
ie before he sold shares ...
i would say pretty soon we would all be left without any good agency in microstock.
i would say, start looking for a dayjob or a new outlet to sell your wares


Here are a few shutterstock company reviews on glass door.

"Cons

Too many to list. Try asking one of more than 100 former employees that have left company in the past year"

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm

Staff do not care for you.
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

Good experiences drowning in dissatisfaction with the staff.

Cons

Silly customer - hah hah !!!

Advice to Management

Customer care and respect.


May 5, 2015

Horrible Company. Look Elsewhere.
Former Employee - Inside Sales Representative in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

They have snacks whenever you want...just like preschool.

Cons

Too many to list. Try asking one of more than 100 former employees that have left company in the past year...

Advice to Management

Keep that resume up to date.


Jun 8

Great company/business, friendly people, lousy engineering environment
Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
No opinion of CEO

Pros

Shutterstock in general knows how to get business and make money. All the people there are friendly and nice and enjoyable to be around. The work-life balance is fine. Their new Empire State Building office is kinda nifty. Assuming that the company's growth continues, new technology/leadership opportunities will also continue to open themselves to employees.

Cons

Engineers/programmers: DO NOT work at Shutterstock to exercise your skills with modern web or backend development. DO NOT work at Shutterstock to learn modern web or backend development skills. You won't accomplish either. If you have a favorite framework at any level of the application stack, odds are good that its use is explicitly forbidden.

Apr 2, 2015

Horrible management
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee

I worked at Shutterstock
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

good co-workers, 15 min. massage, Espresso Machine

Cons

Blood * management firing people who started to work before them. Booz in the office.

Advice to Management

Hope they will move on to the next company sooner : your next victim.


Jan 24, 2015

Poor leadership.
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Neutral Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

Very nice, creative and ambitious people (especially below management), perks including food, tech happy hours and meetups, great office with lots of light.

Cons

Changing rapidly, lost the good leadership they had, extremely impatient culture, disorganized, too many opinions and stakeholders on every new project.

Advice to Management

Promote more from within, hire strong agreeable people who know how to manage and lead. Stop with the fire drills and remember your people have value to add. Restructuring product teams in a vacuum is leaving out some of the best talent.


Mar 9, 2015

Opinion to Management
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Pros

Free lunches daily to save money on expensive midtown prices

Cons

not great with communication to employees, and if you voiced you opinion about something it would be looked at as an issue then you will be the outsider starting problems. Then they will find problems with you and get rid of you with some sort of political way to ensure you do not come back at them.

Advice to Management

Truly allow employees to voice their opinion without taking it personal. The company success is because of the people who enjoy working with clients and providing the best service to them.

May 16, 2015

Growing pains
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Positive Outlook
Approves of CEO

Pros

Good perks and benefits. Opportunities to cross over to other teams and really learn how each team functions.

Cons

Leadership uneven. Feedback not always well taken even when obviously needed. Management and operations not expanding and functioning at the level needed for such rapid growth.

Advice to Management

See above.


Enthusiastic Tech Department but Serious Growing Pains
Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Pros

I worked in the Tech department so I can only speak to that part of the company. Overall, people are really friendly and excited to work here. The engineers participate in quarterly Code Rages and one annual Hackathon. Remote employees are regularly flown out for these events. The office is beautiful and has lots of natural light. There are lots of little rooms around the office to escape to, like Show More

Cons

The biggest con is the lack of career development. When you come into a role in the tech department, it's very difficult to evolve into any role other than what you were hired for without a lot of advocacy from the right people. There's just no process for things like team rotations and it's easy to come into a role and just stay there for years. The review and bonus Show More

Advice to Management

Just because an employee is salaried doesn't mean you can force them to work more than 40 hours per week. Don't treat your tech staff like they should feel privileged working for you... remember that in this competitive industry, if you aren't taking care of your tech people, they can easily go elsewhere. Hire execs that actually have executive experience at companies that reflect the kind of company you want to be. Better yet, hire execs that actually like people and have a sense of humor!

Jun 2, 2015

infrastructure engineer
Current Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I have been working at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook

Pros

very generous company to work for, interesting scaling issues, lots of problems to solve

Cons

leadership issues, too many programming languages, lack of ownership, mentality to replace tech rather than to fix it

Advice to Management

listen to your employees, don't just brush them off

 It used to be better
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee

I have been working at Shutterstock

Pros

Perks: food, chair massages, yoga (for tech only) in the elevator bay, espresso machine, get to browse photos at work when bored, innovative, awesome coworkers, the view from the bathroom.

Cons

Negatives: Management secrecy and poor communication, lack of opportunities, very limited equity, located in Fi Di, top positions filled by VC picks, fun lookin hallways lead to drab cube farms

Advice to Management

The company is either a startup or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.


Jan 15, 2015

Great benefits, good salary, but....
Current Employee - Sales in New York, NY

I have been working at Shutterstock full-time
Doesn't Recommend
Positive Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Pros

Shutterstock pays well. In my case they didn't pay what they had promised in the recruiting process. The benefits are really nice, you get stock options, ESPP, a generous travel policy, fitness budget, drinks, etc. Shutterstock products are great, very easy to sell, but sales has to sell a lot. Clients like Shutterstock a lot. The processes work well, very smart and talented people in the company, but also really weird characters, especially out of the employees that started in the early days of Shutterstock. New staff is usually better educated and more experienced except a few strange hires. Very nice offices and locations around the world.

Cons

A big issue is that Shutterstock still employs people from the old days of Shutterstock who haven't seen a lot in the business world. Some of them don't have great education compared to other employees. Nevertheless, they have a lot influence and want to keep their power. Politics is also a big problem in my opinion. Some control freaks in the company and some people who think that they are better than the rest, especially in the lower and middle management. Some people are top performers, other people just talk a lot. In general the company is very performance driven. It's all about figures and revenues, maybe due to the NYSE listing. When I started at Shutterstock it was all about hiring. Today I hear more and more stories about firing people. Usually not a lot communication why. Sometimes also questionable firing decisions.

Advice to Management

It's not only about disrupting an industry, it's also about disrupting old structures internally and creating a great culture (besides things you can pay for). I miss the balance. Politics are an issue I believe. Make sure that people find a home at Shutterstock, don't give them the feeling that they can and will be fired very quickly, if something doesn't work out. Rather find solutions. Think long term - sales and revenue is not everything.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 10:55 by gbalex »

Shelma1

« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2015, 16:40 »
+7
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2015, 16:42 »
0
Interesting comment about old timers vs new timers. Similar to the SS forum, with the elite four leading the old timer pack bashing newbies with an opinion. Been there, took the heat.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2015, 16:46 »
0
Funny how a couple of people here will turn anything into an excuse to bash SS. I'll try to take this back to the OPs question: (yes there are eight points numbered 1-7 and 7)   :)

Why going exclusive with another agency is a bad idea:

1) You will be just another exclusive among hundreds vying for the same resources from one company. You can't go to another company to complain- you are stuck with a single channel.

2) Competition is good for the industry and YOU! Let's say you don't like the way they are treating a certain rule/idea/etc. You have nowhere to go! At least you can use your vote by concentrating your efforts on another agency until the other one gets back in line. Why give up your voting power? In fact, these other agencies don't even let you talk about other stock agencies on their forums. You give up a lot to go exclusive.

3) Why sell your photos in one place for just a 10% increase at that one agency? Tons of photographers are telling me every day that they make more with ShutterStock than anywhere else! Why not make cash here, AND everywhere else?

4) Staying with ShutterStock means being part of something new and changing. We consider all of your suggestions - and implement them back into the system as quickly as we can. What happened when we weren't processing photos fast enough? We hired a night reviewer who worked on Christmas Eve! What other agency will review your photos on a major holiday?

5) I don't like exclusivity -- and i don t plan to lock anybody into ShutterStock. I think you guys should sell your photos everywhere and make as much money as possible! Besides - the model we have here is just one model... Your photos may do well here some parts of the year, and better in other places other parts of the year.

6) Other places may try to convince you that going exclusive is a good business idea. It is exactly the opposite! If you aren't convinced of that, go back to (1) and do not proceed until you agree. ;)

7) Our traffic is increasing. Sales are increasing. If you don t believe me, check out our Alexa Graph. If that doesn t convince you to stay here   what will?

7) Finally, I would hate to see any of you go!

Would welcome any feedback you guys have.


Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO
ShutterStock, Inc.
(Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004)


« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2015, 16:49 »
0
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.

I looked at the site a few months ago and copied them in order.

I find it weird that no matter what shutterstock does you defend them. I suppose you think the 1/3 price reduction on 4K vid is a positive.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2015, 16:49 »
+2
A lot has changed in 11 years

« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2015, 16:53 »
+1
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.
Click on the "Rating Trends", I think literally everything you can look at shows a drop.  He might not be skewing it too much.

Shelma1

« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2015, 17:03 »
+1
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.

I looked at the site a few months ago and copied them in order.

I find it weird that no matter what shutterstock does you defend them. I suppose you think the 1/3 price reduction on 4K vid is a positive.

I have no opinion about the drop in video pricing because I don't do video (well, I write video, but someone else shoots it).

Actually, I'm not thrilled with the constant banner that reminds people they don't need an extended license, because those have dried up for me as of this month. I'm also hoping the Adobe Stock deal makes them rethink their royalty rate, because it's too low...as is the royalty rate at every stock site I have work on, though iStock's is the most egregious.

But you only look for what you want to see, so whatevs.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2015, 18:37 »
+5
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.

I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.


cuppacoffee

« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2015, 19:04 »
+1
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.

I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.

How would you define "higher quality"?

« Reply #43 on: June 24, 2015, 19:14 »
+1
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.

I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.

How would you define "higher quality"?

There are some approaches.
- By the number of sales (Fotolia, Dreamstime)
- On a case by case basis (Vetta)
- Let us pick the prices we want to sell for (Pond5, Fotolia to a limited extent)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 23:55 by Konstantin Sutyagin »

« Reply #44 on: June 24, 2015, 19:39 »
+1
Funny how posting actual employee reviews that were copied in the order, after I signed on to the site to read them, can be construed as bashing. Employee perception is a simple reality check in regard to company moral and what is happening internally.

I simply gave examples of the reasons I would not consider going exclusive in the company's and employees own words. The main reason being the position management has taken and publicly stated in regard to their long term business road path.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 19:42 by gbalex »

« Reply #45 on: June 24, 2015, 21:19 »
0
Funny how posting actual employee reviews that were copied in the order, after I signed on to the site to read them, can be construed as bashing. Employee perception is a simple reality check in regard to company moral and what is happening internally.

I simply gave examples of the reasons I would not consider going exclusive in the company's and employees own words. The main reason being the position management has taken and publicly stated in regard to their long term business road path.

Experts in libel and slander assert that defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not. When Tyler gets sued by somebody for what the anonymous haters post here, we might see some changes made.

« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2015, 22:14 »
+1
Experts in libel and slander assert that defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not. When Tyler gets sued by somebody for what the anonymous haters post here, we might see some changes made.

Can not claim slander if it is documented fact, a quick visit to the page below and a page search using the names Duck Swartz, Timothy E. Bixby and Jonathan Oringer gives exact quotes in transcript that each person presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2015, 22:21 »
+6
We have all understood you don't like shutterstock by now.

So which agency would you recommend for exclusive content? Which agency gets it right?

There are a huge number of agencies out there, or do you think it is better to just sell direct?

Instead of always bashing SS, why don't you promote a fair trade site that you like?

ETA: what about 500pix? Pays out 70% and has macro pricing. Maybe that is a better environment for your work.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 00:03 by cobalt »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #48 on: June 25, 2015, 03:33 »
+1
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.

I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.

How would you define "higher quality"?

Seriously?

cuppacoffee

« Reply #49 on: June 25, 2015, 06:31 »
+3
Yes, seriously. What sells the most is not always of the highest "quality". We know what we would eliminate on most of the sites as lowest quality but when you try to define what should be moved to the top tier you can't always identify what that is. Best camera, best lighting, studio shots? Look at the discussions lately of another site that considers themselves new and meeting the needs of today's designer's. Comments were made about many out of focus, filtered, dull colored photos there were on the site. Do you consider those high quality? I'm just trying to get a definition of high quality when it comes to stock imagery. Saleability and quality are not the same thing, or are they?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2394 Views
Last post March 29, 2008, 15:05
by madelaide
19 Replies
5503 Views
Last post May 23, 2014, 07:21
by Maximilian
2 Replies
1280 Views
Last post August 02, 2014, 11:51
by etudiante_rapide
12 Replies
29408 Views
Last post November 18, 2014, 13:50
by asmai
6 Replies
4109 Views
Last post August 15, 2016, 21:45
by henrytrinh

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results