20% of my Feb income came from GI and PP sales

I hope you have considered the long term effects that the PP will have on your IS sales. If you don't care, then cheers to you on your recent short-term income boost.

Quote from: Starbucks on March 29, 2011, 09:51

I hope you have considered the long term effects that the PP will have on your IS sales. If you don't care, then cheers to you on your recent short-term income boost.

I'd rather a cup of coffee today that 2 cups of coffee next year ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

Yeah but next years harvest for coffee beans is much more promising.

Sounds like Shank

Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

Nope.  Shutterstock has existed since 2004.  The market has grown substantially since then, so apparently they managed to coexist without destroying anything. In fact, their success contributed to the necessity for Istock to start it's exclusivity program and pay you more.  I am sure if you wrote them a nice thank-you-note they would appreciate it

Now, in addition to paying among the highest subscription rates, they also have a booming business in PPD sales.  

Don't know what they plan to do in the future, but as of right now, they haven't screwed either their contributors or their buyers the way Getty/Istock/H&F have been doing repeatedly for two years.  And as an added bonus - Shutterstock's site functions!  

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 29, 2011, 17:10

Quote from: gostwyck on March 29, 2011, 11:12

Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

Taken to its logical conclusion, it means anyone supplying micros instead of the high-price agencies is stupid. It's a revamped version of the old trad guys' complaints. They had a fair point but they couldn't stem the tide.

BTW, Lisa, the fact the market has grown doesn't mean that Shutterstock hasn't destroyed sales at iS. The sales there might have been four times what they are if Shutterstock hadn't appeared on the scene. So maybe we are losing $3 at iS for every $1 we make at Shutterstock. There's just no way of knowing.

My thoughts exactly

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 29, 2011, 18:09

BTW, Lisa, the fact the market has grown doesn't mean that Shutterstock hasn't destroyed sales at iS. The sales there might have been four times what they are if Shutterstock hadn't appeared on the scene. So maybe we are losing $3 at iS for every $1 we make at Shutterstock. There's just no way of knowing.

You may be right, and you are definitely right that there's no way of knowing.  My point was that contributing to Shutterstock isn't stupid.  You seem to agree with that. 

My other point was that competition from Shutterstock and the other early sites are what forced Istock to offer exclusivity.  Without it everyone who is exclusive at Istock would be would have been making 20% or less as rank and file.  And they wouldn't have those cool Moo cards...

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 29, 2011, 19:07

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

Actually, those were Gostwyck's words about the PP. Paulie was just saying that the same logic can be applied to selling on SS. He wasn't accusing SS of actually doing that, just questioning Gostwyck's assertion.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 29, 2011, 19:29

Quote from: lisafx on March 29, 2011, 19:11

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 29, 2011, 19:07

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

Actually, those were Gostwyck's words about the PP. Paulie was just saying that the same logic can be applied to selling on Shutterstock. He wasn't accusing Shutterstock of actually doing that, just questioning Gostwyck's assertion.

Wow, I'm glad somebody's paying attention around here.   

That and percentages thrown out as income, as a point of debate.

Here are my Feb. numbers, very simple. Both average about the same monthly income, it varies, but comes out pretty close to 50/50

Average sale on IS February, including PP sales 95 cents
Average sale on SS February, all types, 52 cents

If IS is paying 20% (15% in my case, I'm the lowest of low, independent) and I get more per license, what is SS paying me? Must be less, correct? Or is someone going to tell me that SS pays a higher percentage, and charges less? But the problem is, with approximately the same number of sales from both, IS makes nearly twice as much.

Bottom line? IS pays more even after they have trashed the achievement levels, screwed with the commissions and gone back on their promises.

I can understand anger and resentment but the math doesn't lie. IS pays more than SS!

^^^^^

I wish the number of sales on istock was equal to what I get on shutterstock.

+1

The whole ethos of microstock going right back to before Shutterstock even existed is that you don't look at the individual download commissions (which are universally cr*p - whether it is 8c or 50c or $1 or even $5) you look at the bottom line. I sell three or four times as many files on Shutterstock as I do on IS. So I'm now making more money from Shutterstock than from iS (which is not how it used to be).

My Alamy average is higher than any of my microstock averages and Canstock (with its PP) is now my highest averaging micro. But the same voices that tell us that the low commissions from iStock's PP destroy our business have also told us that the highest averaging agencies like Alamy, Canstock and Crestock are a waste of time because they don't deliver sufficient earnings.

So do we look at this from the Trad perspective and say the higher average commission agencies should be supported and the lower ones shunned, or do we look at it from the micro perspective and say the thing that matters is the bottom line and we judge by that. Or do we say we apply one perspective to one agency and another perspective to another one in order to justify whatever personal prejudices and untestable hypotheses we happen to have acquired along the way?

Maybe I'm just not subtle enough to understand these things. But at the end of the month, $2 from the iS PP still looks like more than $1 from Fotolia when it goes into my wallet.

0% from PP, I am not participating 
0% from Getty, very low number of vetta files 

I don�t like the PP program nor the misleading way it has been advertised. Trying to make buyers leave istock with incredible statements from representatives visiting well stablished istock customers is not the way to go. This behaviour has been reported by some in the istock forums.

Not to mention the price and the way they are forcing people attending lypses to participate 

I would rather go independent that participating in the PP with the current conditions.

Wow! No need to reach for the red ink, Lisa! I'm not wilfully misunderstanding you. Sure, if you take "destroy" SS hasn't destroyed iS and TS hasn't destroyed either of them. It's safe to presume they poach some sales from each other, though.

I don't quite get how quoting your entire passage is taking it out of context, but never mind.