ShutterStock just announced their new "raise" and iSTOCK is the only winner!!!

Here's to many more exclusive photographers coming your way!!!  Way to go.

Oh, and last month, you became my number one site in terms of $$$ returned to me, supplanting another site I mention in this thread.

So, CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Actually I think if iStock were really clued up they would introduce a deal for exclusive images, having a total exclusive RF criteria will never attract the top submitters, remember microstock is still a small (albeit significant) segment of the stock world in general, however if they were to offer a better deal for exclusive images from non exclusive contributors they would, I believe, kill off Shutterstock once and for all.

removed comment.   too much hostility out there on this one.

 

Quote from: Kngkyle on May 13, 2008, 12:55

iStock can totally take advantage of this and bump their exclusive commissions by 5% or something which would likely be the final nail in the coffin for many SS submitters.

That's like iStock saying "Hey Submitters! We appreciate our photographers! You are welcome to join us." where as Shutterstock basically just said "fuck you".

Hahahahahah.... when was the last time IS bumped their commissions. They pay the lowest commisions in the industry, so to IStock Photo I say "FU"

Dont you see the problem? Look, istock has a low commision- 20 to 40 percent. But it has stayed the same sinse exclusivity began. They havent changed it. Even with the introduction of subscriptions it seems to be staying the same. Compare that to shutterstock- yes theyre raising your pay. But theyre not raising you percentage, are they? Theyre lowering it EVERY TIME THE PRICE CHANGES. This is a terrible model. In ten years time Istock's percent will still probably be 20-40 percent. What will shutterstock's be? 1 percent or something ridiculous like that. Youll be on 40 cents when they make ten dollars. This is why their model is so bad. There is no future in it for contributors. The price of their images goes up massively but our cut isnt a percentage, so it goes up in cents instead. In an industry with these price rises, this can only lead to us getting shafted. As time goes by, there will be more of this.

Quote from: Kngkyle on May 13, 2008, 12:55

iStock can totally take advantage of this and bump their exclusive commissions by 5% or something which would likely be the final nail in the coffin for many SS submitters.

That's like iStock saying "Hey Submitters! We appreciate our photographers! You are welcome to join us." where as Shutterstock basically just said "fuck you".

Hahahahahah.... when was the last time IS bumped their commissions. They pay the lowest commisions in the industry, so to IStock Photo I say "FU"

Have you ever looked at the commisions you get from a sale at iS, for instance on iStock if a buyer DL's a Large you can get anything between $1.38 - $2.38, for an XS you get 24cents, all depending on what credit package they've bought. (I'm appreciate the amount can fluctuate but I just took some figures from an image I've sold a lot.)
On Shutterstock if a buyers downloads an XXL the most you get is 38cents !!!!

At the end of the day if you sell your images on a subscription site whereby a buyer can DL an image at any size they want for a standard commision, then you're going to get screwed.

It waits to be seen what happens when iStock start their subscription scheme as to how much the average commission works out to be, at least there is the possiblity to earn more.

Percentages mean nothing, it's what you get in your pocket that counts.

since when is having shutterstock gone a good idea???

Obviously it is not the case for everyone, but they are still my top performer and as long as they are such, I am hardly in a position to complain about their business practices.  I am not happy with the raise either but one of the biggest obsticales for them to compete with istock is marketing.  Marketing takes $$

I agree having them there as competition is positive for us. They really need to sort their act out though. I get the impression that SS stumbled upon a great idea, started raking it in then had no clue about what to do from there.
The site basically hasn't changed since conception in look or functionality. They are starting to look and feel really dated.
They statement about international sales (it costs more to advertise in the UK etc.) shows their business model is way out of date too. They are trying to subdivide their business along borders that just don't exist in the age of the internet!

Well-said, Microbius. There is a serious issue at SS with contributor relations (or lack thereof). 

the problem is with SS's model there's no need to value your contributors. With IS for example they need to hold onto as many good submitters as they can, the more downloads you get, the more they make. With SS there's a perverse balancing act, while a strong overall collection is important, they actually lose money every time you get a download. You have no value to them as an individual and it really shows.
If they ever start offering individual sales they'll soon realize their mistakes!

This is actually a great point that hit me recently too. For SS to make the most money, the ideal situation would be:

1. Have a minority of very nice images, and a huge mix of decent to so-so images.
2. Use those nice images along with total image count to attract and sell as many new buyer subscriptions as possible.
3. Provide just enough of the nice images plus new images to barely sustain buyer renewals
4. Bring aboard as many new contributors and new images as possible to give buyers something fresh to download so they want to renew
5. Have as low of a buyer download rate as possible, ideally zero downloads, so SS gets to keep as much of the money as possible.

So, in summary, it would not be in their best interest to have a huge amount of excellent images because downloads would increase and they would make less money.

So could this explain the odd rejections people get? Maybe they keep count of how many okay/good/great images they get and if the balance gets out of wack they start rejecting images that are too nice that may get too many downloads.

Regardless, this is a model where the incentive works against the buyer and seller.

Another good point Microbius