MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Can iStock Turn Midstock Sales Around?  (Read 46569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: June 09, 2014, 14:01 »
+1
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.


That seems kind of old. Those magnitudes don't really exist anymore. Most other agencies are cheaper now or the same deal.


Not so old, 6 or 7 months ago and as we can see Fotolia & IS were forced to make adjustments downward in order to compete. This has not been good for contributors as it degrades the value of the asset we pay for and produce.   

To put it further into perspective, Jon is talking about SOD's when he mention this phrase. "If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive."

Does anyone think it is beneficial in any way to undercut the existing macro market by 8 or 10 times?

Shutterstock's Management Presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference
http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco


Nobody forced these companies to do these things. They chose to do them. They don't have to do them to compete. IS cruised along just fine without subs for a long time.

As far as the benefit of undercutting macro, I've never sold in that market, so I'm not sure I'd be typing this if it was the only game in town.


I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.

In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.

As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market. 


Ron

« Reply #101 on: June 09, 2014, 14:07 »
+2
They started as a subsite, why submitting images then, and complain now about the same sub model?

« Reply #102 on: June 09, 2014, 14:36 »
0
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662


It is very interesting that only 33 of the 682 images in the PeopleImages collection are at Signature+ prices. 649 are at the lower priced Signature prices. Nothing in Vetta.

« Reply #103 on: June 09, 2014, 14:41 »
+7
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.

In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.

As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.

I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.

« Reply #104 on: June 09, 2014, 15:05 »
+4
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.


That seems kind of old. Those magnitudes don't really exist anymore. Most other agencies are cheaper now or the same deal.


Not so old, 6 or 7 months ago and as we can see Fotolia & IS were forced to make adjustments downward in order to compete. This has not been good for contributors as it degrades the value of the asset we pay for and produce.   

To put it further into perspective, Jon is talking about SOD's when he mention this phrase. "If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive."

Does anyone think it is beneficial in any way to undercut the existing macro market by 8 or 10 times?

Shutterstock's Management Presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference
http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco


So, why aren't IS and FT "forced" to pay 20-30% to contributors to compete instead of as low as 5-15% depending on the exchange rate.

As for undercutting the Macro market, that is how micro started, why expect a change from that?

Sure, I'd love for them to pay contributors more, but at least they haven't dropped their payment like a number of other sites.

« Reply #105 on: June 10, 2014, 02:48 »
+3
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662


It is very interesting that only 33 of the 682 images in the PeopleImages collection are at Signature+ prices. 649 are at the lower priced Signature prices. Nothing in Vetta.


Wow __ those 682 images have only generated 8 sales in 2 months!

If they cost an average of $20 to produce and upload then they represent an investment of $13.6K. If the average commission earned per sale was $20 then the portfolio is generating about $80 per month. At that rate it would take over 14 years for Yuri to get his investment back. That's insane.

Even if you halved the production cost to $10 and doubled the average commission to $40 (both of which seem pretty unlikely) then it would still be nearly 4 years before Yuri turned a profit.

I just don't understand how this can be viable. Does anyone?

« Reply #106 on: June 10, 2014, 03:24 »
+1
it seems yuri needed another more account on istock http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=11721662


It is very interesting that only 33 of the 682 images in the PeopleImages collection are at Signature+ prices. 649 are at the lower priced Signature prices. Nothing in Vetta.


Wow __ those 682 images have only generated 8 sales in 2 months!

If they cost an average of $20 to produce and upload then they represent an investment of $13.6K. If the average commission earned per sale was $20 then the portfolio is generating about $80 per month. At that rate it would take over 14 years for Yuri to get his investment back. That's insane.

Even if you halved the production cost to $10 and doubled the average commission to $40 (both of which seem pretty unlikely) then it would still be nearly 4 years before Yuri turned a profit.

I just don't understand how this can be viable. Does anyone?


Looks like although the user was set-up in April this year, the images were only uploaded this month, so it's probably too early to know how they're doing.

But from the OT it does sound like Yuri has concerns about iStock/Getty's sales performance.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #107 on: June 10, 2014, 03:30 »
+1
George is right - I made the same mistake yesterday until I checked one of my own files and confirmed that iS use the American way of dating, so all the files in that port showing at this moment were uploaded on 6-4-14, meaning 4th June 2014, not 6th April.

We can be forgiven for not having this etched on our brains. For editorial files, they have:
Updated on year-month-date
but
Uploaded on month-date-year

« Reply #108 on: June 10, 2014, 04:05 »
+1
George is right - I made the same mistake yesterday until I checked one of my own files and confirmed that iS use the American way of dating, so all the files in that port showing at this moment were uploaded on 6-4-14, meaning 4th June 2014, not 6th April.

We can be forgiven for not having this etched on our brains. For editorial files, they have:
Updated on year-month-date
but
Uploaded on month-date-year

Eight sales in five or six days from 600 images is still atrocious.  It would work out at about 0.8 sales per image per year. The data set is too small to be accurate but it provides initial support for my earlier calculation that he is selling around one file in three per year.

It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.

« Reply #109 on: June 10, 2014, 04:15 »
+1
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22795.msg383726#msg383726 date=1402391139

It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.
[/quote

My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?

« Reply #110 on: June 10, 2014, 04:29 »
+3

It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.

My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?

Maybe Yuriland is the new reality for all of us.

« Reply #111 on: June 10, 2014, 04:51 »
+3

It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.

My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?

Maybe Yuriland is the new reality for all of us.

"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "

« Reply #112 on: June 11, 2014, 17:48 »
+2
I like this quote from Yuri: "We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself."

They should have made these "core site improvements" five years ago, but at least it's something. I hope it means a completely new server platform and I also hope they redesign the site at the same.

But after years of disappointments I'm still not expecting much. Every time they've said that HUGE changes are underway it's usually meant a new logo, a tiny design change, or a few removed features to desperately try and make the site a little faster...

« Reply #113 on: June 11, 2014, 18:01 »
+3
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.

In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.

As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.

I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.

I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.

I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.

« Reply #114 on: June 11, 2014, 18:11 »
+1

It looks as if sales have collapsed in Yuriland.

My sales have also collapsed at IS. Could I have somehow found my way to Yuriland too?

Maybe Yuriland is the new reality for all of us.

That could be.  I've given him cudos in the past from going "rags to riches".  I think he deserves that respect.  But beyond that his created his own business model that became unsustainable from a cost standpoint, or he simply felt that his margins weren't big enough.  So enter "professionals deal with professionals".  He struck a deal with Getty presumably to punch up his margins to pay for COGS and yield a profit.  That promise by Getty (whatever it is) that Yuri would make X is obviously challenged, and we can see some of that by the multiple collections they are forming and the "new facelift of IS" in 3 months.  But it's a factor of expectations.  I am fairly certain that I (and many of you) would be giddy with 1/4 of what he was promised by Getty, let alone what he is actually getting today. If this assessment is correct, and Getty over promised and under delivered, then Yuri is in panic mode. He isn't too big to fail unless he lowers his expectations.   
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 18:47 by Mantis »

« Reply #115 on: June 11, 2014, 18:16 »
+2
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.

In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.

As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.

I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.

I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.

I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.

As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions.  If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.

« Reply #116 on: June 11, 2014, 18:39 »
+3
As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions.  If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.

Some of my issues are more about ME than the agencies. As I've learned and evolved in micro, what I've come expect/want has changed. It frustrates me that agencies have changed more with me. I can't really blame them for that, but it still is frustrating none the less.

« Reply #117 on: June 11, 2014, 19:21 »
+1
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.

In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.

As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.


I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.


I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.

I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.


As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions.  If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.


I joined shutterstock shortly after they opened. I would not say that purposely keeping sub pricing at the same price for 8 or 9 years is NOT going in the right direction.

In the beginning shuttersock advertized that you could earn money from images sitting idle on your hard drive and the quality of images in the shuttersotck collection reflected this. Image quality is no where near what it was in 2004 yet shutterstock's sub pricing has remained unchanged.

I agree with Yuri's early comments that the distinct and rapid rise in picture quality standards should have guided contributor payout/royalty price per image!  At the very least they could have split off higher end content to an Offset like model as quality rose beyond the low sub value that they purposely used to gain market share.

As an example here is an example of image quality in 2005 from one of shutterstocks leading contributors.

Yuri's  2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?


http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793

Another example of image quality from Yuri, whose user name on the shutterstock forum was Logos.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402

Here are Yuri's 2005 thoughts on SS's Royalties vs Image Quality

Snip

This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.

As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.

Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821

« Reply #118 on: June 12, 2014, 01:07 »
+4

Here are Yuri's 2005 thoughts on SS's Royalties vs Image Quality

Snip

This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.

As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.

Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821


But that was a fundamental misunderstanding of the free market. Price is driven by scarcity and demand, not by quality. It's only when high-quality items are in demand and scarce that their price is high. Internal competition among suppliers made very high quality work available in large volumes - larger volumes than the market can stand, going by the falling return per image.
Someone mentioned the concept of "too big to fail", but that will never be relevant because it only applies when failure would cause extreme damage to a national economy. Stock is never going to do that. In any case, in my view no image factory should ever go bankrupt because all the production costs are paid in advance and earnings trickle in later, so if the factory is sensitive to trends it can scale its operations up or down depending on how the market is developing. Even if it has to cease production altogether it would still exist as a shell, receiving residual income. It would only go bankrupt if it kept on paying to produce work even though it wasn't selling fast enough to cover costs, which could happen if the management refused to recognise changing realities.
Three years from now, the image factories may have stopped producing because of falling ROI, but their catalogue will still be earning for them.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #119 on: June 14, 2014, 12:28 »
+2
They never gave you a raise in all that time?

I joined shutterstock shortly after they opened. I would not say that purposely keeping sub pricing at the same price for 8 or 9 years is NOT going in the right direction.

Yes I agree, image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Three years from now, the image factories may have stopped producing because of falling ROI, but their catalogue will still be earning for them.

Yup and so will people like LisaFX who built a nice, well designed collection, with years of work. Maybe not growing income or stable returns, but still income based on residuals for the work already done. The individual contributor is not gaining income or returns at this point. Well maybe some, but not, like it was in 2005 - 2009. Most people are seeing a drop, even when they are still working and adding more files.

Can someone tell me (since this is becoming a follow the bouncing Yuri thread) Yuri Arcurs Invests $1.2 Million in Scoopshot July 2013. So what's going on?

As far as iStock, I hope they do find something positive and bring more income return for all of us.

« Reply #120 on: June 14, 2014, 14:39 »
+1
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

« Reply #121 on: June 14, 2014, 15:59 »
-1
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?


Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?


I would never applaud the fact that any of the micros used price undercutting to upsell its content to existing higher end customers by low balling the offerings of existing higher end competitors.

The move in 2008 to On Demand was buyer and not contributor benifit driven. In 2007, Jon toyed with creating a shutter stock brand that focus on "higher-priced photos" to start moving into Getty's market". 

However in the end Jon chose to keep images which could have been included in higher end collections at sub and eventually on demand pricing levels; with the intent of gaining market share.

As you can see Jon knew full well that such mid level images had a market, yet he stiffed high end shutterstock contributors in leiu of calculated shutterstock market growth.

Snip

"Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated."

But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"

http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj


Shutterstock Launches New "On Demand" Subscription to Serve Full Spectrum of Stock Image Buyers
World's largest subscription-based online stock photo agency debuts four new plans for customers who need limited quantities of images
New York, NY Aug 5, 2008

Snip

Shutterstock's new On Demand plans are ideal solutions for stock image users who need quality images in limited quantities. Customers can download images anytime over a one-year period by paying a one-time fee of $49 or $229, depending on the quantity and resolution of the images desired. Within the plans, prices range from $4 per download for smaller sizes to $10 per download for the largest sizes and for vector images.

"We're always looking for ways to better serve the needs of our customers," said Shutterstock CEO and Founder Jon Oringer. "On Demand provides a flexible option for businesses and individuals who do not always need the volume of images provided by our original subscription plan. In the constantly changing online stock photography marketplace, the addition of On Demand allows us to cater to the full spectrum of stock photo users."

http://tinyurl.com/m7q8mvu

Photo wars: A $2 billion business gets rough - The giants of the stock photo business--Getty Images and Corbis--are being challenged by a flock of tiny "microstock" agencies. And it's become a game that almost anyone can play, reports Business 2.0 Magazine.
Business 2.0 Magazine By Robert Levine, Business 2.0 Magazine

April 4 2007

Snip

Klein's initial plan for dealing with the microstock revolution was to buy into it. In early 2006 Getty purchased iStockphoto for $50 million. As he tells it, the revolution is a blessing in disguise. Most of iStockphoto's customers could never have bought an image before, and many probably simply copied what they needed. If Klein can bring them in the door with iStockphoto, he might get some of them to consider Getty's better images, and to this end he'll introduce a new line of photos that is more expensive than microstock but cheaper than the company's other offerings.

"Our aim is to provide imagery for every budget," Klein says. "I want as much share of each customer's wallet as possible."

Snip

"Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated."

But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?"

Snip

David and the two Goliaths

In a Manhattan Starbucks, a continent and a sensibility removed from the Corbis and Getty offices, Tscheltzoff is describing how Fotolia is trying to play David to the industry Goliaths. The company offers 2.2 million images taken by 25,000 photographers, but it employs only 18 people--all but three of whom work from home.

"We IM and talk on Skype," says Tscheltzoff, a Frenchman who splits his time between New York City and Paris. When he needs to take a meeting, he says with a sweep of his hand, "this is my office." Today's rent is a small iced coffee, which he sips as he explains how his business works.

As he describes it, the microstock model is the picture of efficiency. Submissions pour in electronically from photographers, who get 50 percent or more of the proceeds of each sale. The company has few inventory concerns, no shipping issues, and hardly any operating costs. The business broke even after eight months, Tscheltzoff says. (He won't reveal much more, except that annual sales are less than $10 million.) The biggest expense is marketing: selling the company to both prospective contributors and potential customers.

"If you don't have buyers, you don't get photos," he says. "And if you don't have photos, you don't get buyers."
Next Net 25: Startups to watch

Other microstock sites--there are several large ones and dozens of smaller entries--tell a similar story, although the details differ.

Jon Oringer, founder and CEO of Shutterstock, based in New York City, sells low-cost photos by subscription--25 photos a day for $199 per month or $1,999 per year. The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott.

At all these sites, employees decide what photos to accept, but the contributors do much of the work of organizing the material--submitting their pictures with keywords that are then scanned by the sites' search engines.

"The margins are great," says Alan Meckler, CEO of Jupiter Images, which pioneered a low-cost subscription model before the microstocks arriv

http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj

Uncle Pete

« Reply #122 on: June 14, 2014, 23:36 »
+1
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.

Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.

If suppliers willingly sell to the distribution chain for low percentages, they can't complain. It's self determined, it's a personal decision. No one is holding our hand in the fire and saying, "you will produce and sell for pocket change and low commissions".

I don't care what agency it is (and I don't know why another IS thread turned into a bash SS thread?) People left IS and have dropped many others over trust, commission and basic income issues.

If IS can bring back some of the lost sales and profits for contributors that's going to make them a Microstock contender again, instead of a picked over carcase of what they once were.

Exclusives are the exception and I still say, the loyalty deserves to be rewarded. It's exclusive content as well and I find nothing wrong if IS gave them the better search placement. They already get paid more. Why not encourage people to be exclusive and make the site stand for something different in the Forrest of "every site has the same images from the same people".

My question is: Does Midstock sales mean anything to an Indy like myself? What are IS Midstock sales? I get 15% and for subs on IS I wonder if it's even that.

« Reply #123 on: June 15, 2014, 10:56 »
+1
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?

Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?

Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.

Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Subscription Reality

In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download

In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and pay's contributors .25 to .38 cents or 89% of each download for the first pay level and 117% of each download for the second pay level. This makes it clear why shutterstock works hard to gain new contributors and promote their images in buyer searches.

2007 25 photos a day for $199 per month or $1,999 per year or 21 cents per image

2014 25 photos a day for $299 per month or $2,559 per year or 28 cents per image

2007
$0.25  or 119% of each download

2014
$0.25  or 89% of each download
$0.33  or 117% of each download
$0.36  or 128% of each download
$0.38  or 135% of each download

2007 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule Photographers are paid 25 cents royalty

2008 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule Photographers are paid 25 cents to 30 cents if you have earned $500 or more in sales from Shutterstock

2014 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule

$0.25  @ 0 - $500 Lifetime earnings
$0.33  @ $500 - $3,000 Lifetime earnings
$0.36  @ $3,000 - $10,000 Lifetime earnings
$0.38  @ $10,000 + Lifetime earnings

« Reply #124 on: June 15, 2014, 11:37 »
+4
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.

It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.

SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP

I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2014, 11:41 by robhainer »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
8535 Views
Last post February 20, 2008, 17:28
by sensovision
12 Replies
6385 Views
Last post June 08, 2009, 22:09
by stock shooter
9 Replies
6169 Views
Last post April 15, 2011, 07:52
by visceralimage
12 Replies
4877 Views
Last post January 06, 2015, 12:37
by Uncle Pete
0 Replies
13599 Views
Last post July 03, 2020, 05:07
by StockPerformer.com

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors