MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: iStop on December 03, 2012, 19:53
-
Historically empires rise and fall. This may be a first time in history where an empire solely destroyed itself.
Reading this post from a buyer makes you realize that all of the recent destruction of iStock's buyer base could have been avoided if iStock just knew the meaning of "If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It".
Just having to read this kind of post from a buyer makes you realize that if someone knows how to run a business that things would never ever reach such a critical breaking point. It's a shame a buyer is left to feel this desperate. What a pity.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349485&page=1
-
It's not 'the first time' at all. It's actually what normally happens __ just a bit faster than might be expected, but that's probably the times we live in.
Studies I read back in the 90's reckoned that historically the average life of a business was about 40 years. That's about how long it usually took for a one-man business to grow, take on employees, become a big player, achieve the status of 'market-leader' in it's field ... before complacency almost inevitably sets in, allowing younger more vibrant competitors to overcome and destroy them.
Unfortunately the complacency at iStock probably started in 2005, when they introduced the exclusivity programme, but never quite made it financially attractive enough to destroy their competitors before they had got going. iStock is now being destroyed by SS who they allowed to live back then __ because they never really believed them to be a threat. Big mistake.
-
I wonder when Microsoft will end up the same? Maybe Apple will eat them up...
-
More history-
http://www.microstockposts.com/istockphoto-makes-all-the-wrong-moves/ (http://www.microstockposts.com/istockphoto-makes-all-the-wrong-moves/)
-
I wonder when Microsoft will end up the same? Maybe Apple will eat them up...
Actually except for some Mac blind followers (and the fact that it is MUCH better for graphics), and the myth that Macs work better and don't get viruses, Apple would already be out of business if Microsoft hadn't propped them up.
Apple with 5% of the world market and for those who think the US is the center of the Earth 12% and maybe 15% if things continue upward.
I doubt that Apple will eat anything, except from their core followers.
What's hurting MS more is free developers who make things like Open Office and Firefox and Thunderbird or many other projects, Ubuntu and Linux could be interesting.
I'm not so sure the predictions of four years for Micro will come to pass. There are hundreds of little agencies, * what they can get out of the system. Even if they go, the top 20 or so, are making about 85% off our work. So they have expenses, but the mid-tier that don't spend bundles on marketing are just making money off people and the crowd source victims. It reminds me of people who can't leave an abusive relationship. It's the only way of life they know.
I wish the predictions were right, and we'd lose the parasites. Then maybe the working agencies could afford to charge reasonable prices and pay us better commissions. People who feed these money * price cutting agencies are just as much at fault as the agencies that take advantage of people who need the income.
-
No youre very wrong. Its destruction for a purpose, i.e. its done on purpose and for a reason and the IS admin cant do anything about it because they are themselves just minor players in all this. Got nothing to do with it.
So far the strategy has worked out superb. Getty has got them exactly where they want them and frankly it might all be for the better? after all as independants we were not treated much better before, were we?
Personally I am much rather in the hands of Getty then the present wobbling IS admin.
Besides at the moment IS, is selling very well for me. Cant complain at all.
-
No youre very wrong. Its destruction for a purpose, i.e. its done on purpose and for a reason and the IS admin cant do anything about it because they are themselves just minor players in all this. Got nothing to do with it.
So far the strategy has worked out superb. Getty has got them exactly where they want them and frankly it might all be for the better? after all as independants we were not treated much better before, were we?
Personally I am much rather in the hands of Getty then the present wobbling IS admin.
Besides at the moment IS, is selling very well for me. Cant complain at all.
LOL, that's the most self-contradictory post I ever read on these forums, at least since Lagereek had his meltdown and disappeared.
Hang on... You look familiar!
-
I wonder when Microsoft will end up the same? Maybe Apple will eat them up...
Actually except for some Mac blind followers (and the fact that it is MUCH better for graphics), and the myth that Macs work better and don't get viruses, Apple would already be out of business if Microsoft hadn't propped them up.
ouch, them's fighting words
-
It's amazing that the post was not deleted yet... the accumulated tension among buyers is starting to burst.... The war in Balkans ( in the 1990's) started on a football stadium as a result of accumulated tensions....
-
No youre very wrong. Its destruction for a purpose, i.e. its done on purpose and for a reason and the IS admin cant do anything about it because they are themselves just minor players in all this. Got nothing to do with it.
So far the strategy has worked out superb. Getty has got them exactly where they want them and frankly it might all be for the better? after all as independants we were not treated much better before, were we?
Personally I am much rather in the hands of Getty then the present wobbling IS admin.
Besides at the moment IS, is selling very well for me. Cant complain at all.
LOL, that's the most self-contradictory post I ever read on these forums, at least since Lagereek had his meltdown and disappeared.
Hang on... You look familiar!
Sigh! the ususal little microstockers neewbie glib. ::)
-
Or not.
I have noticed that when first you begin to use the word "little", it will only take a few posts before you use the word "girl".
I have also said how that sort of communication is labeled.
-
Or not.
I have noticed that when first you begin to use the word "little", it will only take a few posts before you use the word "girl".
I have also said how that sort of communication is labeled.
Wasnt aware of that actually? sorry but I got the impression that your J, stood for Jane? now if your a guy, begging your pardon.
-
No youre very wrong. Its destruction for a purpose, i.e. its done on purpose and for a reason and the IS admin cant do anything about it because they are themselves just minor players in all this. Got nothing to do with it.
So far the strategy has worked out superb. Getty has got them exactly where they want them and frankly it might all be for the better? after all as independants we were not treated much better before, were we?
Personally I am much rather in the hands of Getty then the present wobbling IS admin.
Besides at the moment IS, is selling very well for me. Cant complain at all.
LOL, that's the most self-contradictory post I ever read on these forums, at least since Lagereek had his meltdown and disappeared.
Hang on... You look familiar!
Sigh! the ususal little microstockers neewbie glib. ::)
well, it's a change from the usual "ignore the newbie" attitude
-
No youre very wrong. Its destruction for a purpose, i.e. its done on purpose and for a reason and the IS admin cant do anything about it because they are themselves just minor players in all this. Got nothing to do with it.
So far the strategy has worked out superb. Getty has got them exactly where they want them and frankly it might all be for the better? after all as independants we were not treated much better before, were we?
Personally I am much rather in the hands of Getty then the present wobbling IS admin.
Besides at the moment IS, is selling very well for me. Cant complain at all.
LOL, that's the most self-contradictory post I ever read on these forums, at least since Lagereek had his meltdown and disappeared.
Hang on... You look familiar!
Sigh! the ususal little microstockers neewbie glib. ::)
well, it's a change from the usual "ignore the newbie" attitude
Not you! like your port btw. :)
-
And here we have.
Dividera et impera, version intimidation.
-
No youre very wrong. Its destruction for a purpose, i.e. its done on purpose and for a reason and the IS admin cant do anything about it because they are themselves just minor players in all this. Got nothing to do with it.
So far the strategy has worked out superb. Getty has got them exactly where they want them and frankly it might all be for the better? after all as independants we were not treated much better before, were we?
Personally I am much rather in the hands of Getty then the present wobbling IS admin.
Besides at the moment IS, is selling very well for me. Cant complain at all.
LOL, that's the most self-contradictory post I ever read on these forums, at least since Lagereek had his meltdown and disappeared.
Hang on... You look familiar!
Sigh! the ususal little microstockers neewbie glib. ::)
well, it's a change from the usual "ignore the newbie" attitude
Not you! like your port btw. :)
you should see my etchings sometime.
-
Whilst I realise that this doesn't necessary mean that he's staying at the helm precisely as he is now, I see nothing but optimism for the future of SS in this interview. He doesn't sound like someone who wants to walk away from his creation:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/ (http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/)
-
^^^ Great link, thanks for posting. It'll be very interesting to see where "... the next nine years" takes us.
-
Whilst I realise that this doesn't necessary mean that he's staying at the helm precisely as he is now, I see nothing but optimism for the future of SS in this interview. He doesn't sound like someone who wants to walk away from his creation:
[url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url] ([url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url])
No he wont just walk away, but with a few billion quid in the pocket ofcourse he will leave the admin and running of the company to others.
Thats not the problem. Problem is and will alway be after an IPO. Once the shareholders start their yearning for profits the troubles start. Its a classic and always follows and to think SS will be the first one not to be effected, well thats to be naive.
Anyhow, wait and see.
-
I'm certainly not naive... but 'wait and see' is very much what I intend to do. In the meantime, as long as they are successful for me, I'll keep uploading.
-
I have pondered this a while and come to realize you can buy a culture. iStock was a culture as well as a brand, when big companies buy up companies like istock they think that they can harness the culture and make more money. It never works, Getty did leave iStock alone for a while the problem was Kelly was not a great leader or motivator. Getty moves in full force to clean up only to make things worse. The culture at iStock is almost gone and since they are only trying to squeeze out profits they can't see that even though they are adding site features like cash purchases, they are loosing the culture that drove iStock in the first place. Punctum Day, Fixed levels fostered helping others with out fear of loosing real money, The big Lypse, more communication and the list goes on. If you want iStock to live in the hearts of the artist that feed you and pay your bills iStock then stop killing the culture that made you successful in the first place!
-
Whilst I realise that this doesn't necessary mean that he's staying at the helm precisely as he is now, I see nothing but optimism for the future of SS in this interview. He doesn't sound like someone who wants to walk away from his creation:
[url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url] ([url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url])
No he wont just walk away, but with a few billion quid in the pocket ofcourse he will leave the admin and running of the company to others.
Thats not the problem. Problem is and will alway be after an IPO. Once the shareholders start their yearning for profits the troubles start. Its a classic and always follows and to think SS will be the first one not to be effected, well thats to be naive.
Anyhow, wait and see.
Huh? Ever heard of companies called Apple, Microsoft or Google (to pick a few out of countless others)? They never did anything after their IPO's did they? Sank without trace shortly afterwards I expect.
Do you just make these ridiculous statements because you have nothing better to do? You can't possibly believe the nonsense that you write. Oringer still owns 54% of the business. It's his baby as well as being almost the entirety of his wealth. He's not going to blow it because someone like you buys a few shares and then starts clamouring for instantaneous extra profits __ which is the sort of idiotic thing you would probably do if you turned up at a shareholders' meeting.
SSTK have already projected both revenues and profit until the end of 2013 in their Q3 report, 15th Oct. Did you even bother to read it before making your absurd 'predictions'? Stop spouting rubbish and read something based on reality;
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2012-financial-results-20121115-01447 (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2012-financial-results-20121115-01447)
-
I couldn't care less about istockphoto..
despite making 1/6 of what I used to make on istock with less files, my micro income went up so they can go to hell with their commissions..
-
Whilst I realise that this doesn't necessary mean that he's staying at the helm precisely as he is now, I see nothing but optimism for the future of SS in this interview. He doesn't sound like someone who wants to walk away from his creation:
[url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url] ([url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url])
No he wont just walk away, but with a few billion quid in the pocket ofcourse he will leave the admin and running of the company to others.
Thats not the problem. Problem is and will alway be after an IPO. Once the shareholders start their yearning for profits the troubles start. Its a classic and always follows and to think SS will be the first one not to be effected, well thats to be naive.
Anyhow, wait and see.
Huh? Ever heard of companies called Apple, Microsoft or Google (to pick a few out of countless others)? They never did anything after their IPO's did they? Sank without trace shortly afterwards I expect.
Do you just make these ridiculous statements because you have nothing better to do? You can't possibly believe the nonsense that you write. Oringer still owns 54% of the business. It's his baby as well as being almost the entirety of his wealth. He's not going to blow it because someone like you buys a few shares and then starts clamouring for instantaneous extra profits __ which is the sort of idiotic thing you would probably do if you turned up at a shareholders' meeting.
SSTK have already projected both revenues and profit until the end of 2013 in their Q3 report, 15th Oct. Did you even bother to read it before making your absurd 'predictions'? Stop spouting rubbish and read something based on reality;
[url]http://www.nasdaq.com/article/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2012-financial-results-20121115-01447[/url] ([url]http://www.nasdaq.com/article/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2012-financial-results-20121115-01447[/url])
Oh I can understand your panic since you seem to build your entire future on one single company. We have done that before and look what happend?
Anyhow, dont panic. You will just have to wait and see wont you, same as all the rest. Now if YOU were a few billions richer what would you do, just sit tight in your cobwebb and hope for the best?
Use your brain and stop quoting and comparing Apple and microsoft. There is a giant, giant differance, both in size and products.
Anyhow best of luck and try and look for an escape route when reallity dawns.
all the best. :)
-
I couldn't care less about istockphoto..
despite making 1/6 of what I used to make on istock with less files, my micro income went up so they can go to hell with their commissions..
Hear Hear
-
And as for stock owners... There are those that think of the future and do not try to milk the cow beyond its yield. They might actually be helpfull in focusing resources to make profit grow.
-
Oringer doesnt have billions in his pockets, just sayin'
-
And as for stock owners... There are those that think of the future and do not try to milk the cow beyond its yield. They might actually be helpfull in focusing resources to make profit grow.
Oh grow up! are you smoking dope or something? I myself inherited shares in some major Corps and banks a few years back. Do you really think I or any other shareholder worry about the future of the companies? we want it NOW, while we are still alive, not tomorrow when dead. Thats the stocks and shares unwritten law.
Some ppl here really live in a promissed land or a fools horizon. ::)
-
And as for stock owners... There are those that think of the future and do not try to milk the cow beyond its yield. They might actually be helpfull in focusing resources to make profit grow.
Oh grow up! are you smoking dope or something? I myself inherited shares in some major Corps and banks a few years back. Do you really think I or any other shareholder worry about the future of the companies? we want it NOW, while we are still alive, not tomorrow when dead. Thats the stocks and shares unwritten law.
Some ppl here really live in a promissed land or a fools horizon. ::)
Oh dear __ we have the Sage of Sweden back to advise us! Roll over Warren Buffett.
Last time I checked the vast, vast majority of shares are actually owned by pension funds and institutional investors. They are very much LT investors.
-
And as for stock owners... There are those that think of the future and do not try to milk the cow beyond its yield. They might actually be helpfull in focusing resources to make profit grow.
Oh grow up! are you smoking dope or something? I myself inherited shares in some major Corps and banks a few years back. Do you really think I or any other shareholder worry about the future of the companies? we want it NOW, while we are still alive, not tomorrow when dead. Thats the stocks and shares unwritten law.
Some ppl here really live in a promissed land or a fools horizon. ::)
Oh dear __ we have the Sage of Sweden back to advise us! Roll over Warren Buffett.
Last time I checked the vast, vast majority of shares are actually owned by pension funds and institutional investors. They are very much LT investors.
Sigh! the usual glib of the microstocker. Get a few more years in the photography business and we can talk. I didnt say shares in SS. Wouldnt buy or get any. I said shares in Corps and banks and some 8 years back.
What have you got? a BME at SS? ::)
-
Come on guys, for a few weeks it was all good. Dont bring back the fights.
-
Actually gostwyck is right. for shareholders the long term is what's important.
-
I couldn't care less about istockphoto..
despite making 1/6 of what I used to make on istock with less files, my micro income went up so they can go to hell with their commissions..
Fully agree.
-
Actually gostwyck is right. for shareholders the long term is what's important.
Yes ofcourse he is right. Thats why ppl are selling like crazy. dow jones, london stock x-change, etc, etc, etc. but he is right and thats why the commodity x-change have sold more then in the last 50 years.
Shareholders comes in two categories. The small ones which will always by the skin of their teeth hang on to it, or the ones with a port that either gambles or let a broker gamble with them. Guess which one will die first?
Anyway what am I doing here? trying to chat with what? bunch of total morons? end of conversation ::)
::) ::) ::)
-
Actually gostwyck is right. for shareholders the long term is what's important.
Yes ofcourse he is right. Thats why ppl are selling like crazy. dow jones, london stock x-change, etc, etc, etc. but he is right and thats why the commodity x-change have sold more then in the last 50 years.
Shareholders comes in two categories. The small ones which will always by the skin of their teeth hang on to it, or the ones with a port that either gambles or let a broker gamble with them. Guess which one will die first?
Anyway what am I doing here? trying to chat with what? bunch of total morons? end of conversation ::)
::) ::) ::)
I have an idea, why not close your account and start two more like you did last time?
"I know a heck of a lot of people making a living in micro and Im not talking about the, MSG bunch, thats all mouth and no money ( yeah I also used to be there but it gave a bad rep )."
Why do you keep coming back?
Gostwyck is right. (again)
-
I have an idea, why not close your account and start two more like you did last time?
+1
he was actually behaving much better (with this nickname) but this topic went way off the marks, why can't you deal with different opinions? we all have issues but yours are serious ;D
-
I couldn't care less about istockphoto..
despite making 1/6 of what I used to make on istock with less files, my micro income went up so they can go to hell with their commissions..
+ 1
And f**k the 18/week upload limit. It will take 2.5 years to upload my port on IS ( and that without producing any new images).
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
-
The Alexa rank of iStock has dropped, from 220+ in 2010, now it's 430+.
While the Alexa rank of Shutter has increased to 220+.
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
More encouraging now 1.5 years ;)
-
Dont knock IS! you should all be happy they accept any of your files. Exclusivity is what counts and the ones that havent got the balls for it should be only too happy they are prepared to sell any of your stuff. I am and they are selling very well right now.
OTOH. there is a market stall in the Casbah that sell pics off the peg ( dry ones that is). try that one. OH its offline btw.
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Really? That's news to me. Can't find any announcement about that and my upload limit (non exclusive) still says 18 per week. Anyone else know anything about this or have a link? Regards, David.
-
I have an idea, why not close your account and start two more like you did last time?
+1
he was actually behaving much better (with this nickname) but this topic went way off the marks, why can't you deal with different opinions? we all have issues but yours are serious ;D
Chris was indeed very good, I thought the conversations where really good and then since 2 days bam back to arguments and name calling. I dont get it.
-
Exclusivity is what counts and the ones that havent got the balls for it should be only too happy they are prepared to sell any of your stuff
Some of us prefer to think with their brain. Some of us do their thinking with their balls, obviously.
-
Exclusivity is what counts and the ones that havent got the balls for it should be only too happy they are prepared to sell any of your stuff
Some of us prefer to think with their brain. Some of us do their thinking with their balls, obviously.
You mean fruitcakes in search of braines?
-
Gents... gents... please... less penis-waving and more port-building ;)
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Really? That's news to me. Can't find any announcement about that and my upload limit (non exclusive) still says 18 per week. Anyone else know anything about this or have a link? Regards, David.
News to me too. Mine remains at 38.
-
pretty sure that it is SPAM, to get more traffic from google, nice job kobajagrande ;D
my bad, thanks Cory
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
I got an email with that recently too. It was a "we miss you" email. It was geared towards vectors though. It looks like it is right. Mine says 50.
-
pretty sure that it is SPAM, to get more traffic from google, nice job kobajagrande ;D
my bad, thanks Cory
mine is 50 too.. used to be 30 for gold..
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
I got an email with that recently too. It was a "we miss you" email. It was geared towards vectors though. It looks like it is right. Mine says 50.
They're sending ex- or non-currently-uploading contributors 'we miss you' emails?! I thought they had heard of contributors but wanted no truck with them (thanks to Douglas Adams).
-
They're sending ex- or non-currently-uploading contributors 'we miss you' emails?! I thought they had heard of contributors but wanted no truck with them (thanks to Douglas Adams).
Well, it made me laugh. It's been about 2 years since I've uploaded any files and over a year since I deleted all my files. So, I guess they just got around to noticing and decided to send me a form letter to express their concern. ;D
-
So, how long do you think one needs to ignore iStock before one receives the 'we miss you' email...?
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
I got an email with that recently too. It was a "we miss you" email. It was geared towards vectors though. It looks like it is right. Mine says 50.
They're sending ex- or non-currently-uploading contributors 'we miss you' emails?! I thought they had heard of contributors but wanted no truck with them (thanks to Douglas Adams).
That is very interesting. It would appear that the utterly disgraceful way that iStock treated illustrators and vector artists in particular, when they introduced the RC system, has back-fired on them somewhat spectacularly if it has left them short on new content being submitted.
Just fire back with "We miss our royalty percentage you greedy f*cks".
-
Just fire back with "We miss our royalty percentage you greedy f*cks".
;D
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
-
Well said Lisa!
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
I couldn't agree more. It also proves that contributors have a lot more power than they believe, if only they could work together and harness it. If enough of us refused to upload any new content until the original royalty system was restored ... it would eventually happen.
-
Just fire back with "We miss our royalty percentage you greedy f*cks".
;D
+1
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
I couldn't agree more. It also proves that contributors have a lot more power than they believe, if only they could work together and harness it. If enough of us refused to upload any new content until the original royalty system was restored ... it would eventually happen.
You also mean the Seans and Yuris?
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Really? That's news to me. Can't find any announcement about that and my upload limit (non exclusive) still says 18 per week. Anyone else know anything about this or have a link? Regards, David.
Curious too. My limit was increased to 20. Don't remember when or why. Where do you find this?
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
I couldn't agree more. It also proves that contributors have a lot more power than they believe, if only they could work together and harness it. If enough of us refused to upload any new content until the original royalty system was restored ... it would eventually happen.
Easy for you to say but then you never made 20k a month with them. Too bad there is no valid replacement for IS. There are some top notch exclusives bailing on them (as in pulling their work) and they are not looking to SS as valid replacement. Looking at alexa IS is crashing and SS is going up a little. If IS is not hurting and the newest pig owners are worried I would be surprised. Oh the money I could have made advising bruce not sell and carlyse group not buy. Don't say I wouldn't have known because you never get in bed with getty without getting screwed and leaving with an STD. I saw what one private equity group did to IS. The old pump and dump. I am surprised a private equity group buy from another private equity group. Talk about sloppy seconds.
-
Curious too. My limit was increased to 20. Don't remember when or why. Where do you find this?
after the 250 downloads (http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/contributor-news/page/2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/contributor-news/page/2))
-
Just had a nice EL for, 110 bucks :) at IS! they can still produce, make no mistake. So theyre a bit tough, so what.
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
That ship has sailed. It would take a lot more than 20% to entice me back.
-
Just had a nice EL for, 110 bucks :) at IS! they can still produce, make no mistake. So theyre a bit tough, so what.
Nice but that doesnt mean crap. One sale doesnt mean IS is back on top, does it?
-
It looks like the bottom has finally been reached.
They have squeezed contributors so much and pushed them away to where they are now short on content.
I don't think a pretty-please email and higher upload limits will do much. They need to start giving some substantial financial incentives if they want to start getting people actively back.
-
Just had a nice EL for, 110 bucks :) at IS! they can still produce, make no mistake. So theyre a bit tough, so what.
are you cheering 110$ sales? its not even 1% of your income ;D
-
Just had a nice EL for, 110 bucks :) at IS! they can still produce, make no mistake. So theyre a bit tough, so what.
are you cheering 110$ sales? its not even 1% of your income ;D
One should be happy with the little things in life. It all mounts up you know. We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. :)
-
Just had a nice EL for, 110 bucks :) at IS! they can still produce, make no mistake. So theyre a bit tough, so what.
are you cheering 110$ sales? its not even 1% of your income ;D
One should be happy with the little things in life. It all mounts up you know. We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. :)
thank god we have you, of course as our star, even if a bipolar one :D
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
I couldn't agree more. It also proves that contributors have a lot more power than they believe, if only they could work together and harness it. If enough of us refused to upload any new content until the original royalty system was restored ... it would eventually happen.
After losing the 20% commission, I did stop uploading for over a year and started removing my portfolio but then noticed that people like you were carrying on uploading new images every week as if nothing had happened. I think if most people didn't do anything much when royalties were cut below 20%, they never will. So I'll wait for everyone else to start a boycott next time.
-
.
-
So, how long do you think one needs to ignore iStock before one receives the 'we miss you' email...?
I wonder.. I haven't uploaded any images in a few months and vectors I haven't uploaded in a few years - and I didn't get any email telling me how much they miss me.
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
is that just for illustrations? I notice that my vector limit is 50/week and my images is at 30/week. I'm Gold for both.
-
Just had a nice EL for, 110 bucks :) at IS! they can still produce, make no mistake. So theyre a bit tough, so what.
are you cheering 110$ sales? its not even 1% of your income ;D
One should be happy with the little things in life. It all mounts up you know. We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. :)
thank god we have you, of course as our star, even if a bipolar one :D
Thats a good one Luis! like it. :D
-
I dont care of upload limits, I never used them up anyway, because of the whole upload process circus and user-hostile interface.
That interface is a slap in the face every time I use it.
Arrogant beyond imagination, which actually describes the whole company.
They need broomsticks in the office, to batter off the pitchforks.
From the sideline it is very interesting to watch a company declining so quickly... only because of attitude. The Ivory Tower complex.
-
I wonder.. I haven't uploaded any images in a few months and vectors I haven't uploaded in a few years - and I didn't get any email telling me how much they miss me.
I haven't submitted anything to IS for a long time either, but have received no email. For those who have gotten one, I'm curious, was it sent by Peebert, or Lobo?
-
Just fire back with "We miss our royalty percentage you greedy f*cks".
;D
;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder.. I haven't uploaded any images in a few months and vectors I haven't uploaded in a few years - and I didn't get any email telling me how much they miss me.
I haven't submitted anything to IS for a long time either, but have received no email. For those who have gotten one, I'm curious, was it sent by Peebert, or Lobo?
Unless this is an in-joke, it must have been an incredibly long time. Peebert was MIA and of legendary status only at iStock when I started in Dec 2006.
-
I wonder.. I haven't uploaded any images in a few months and vectors I haven't uploaded in a few years - and I didn't get any email telling me how much they miss me.
I haven't submitted anything to IS for a long time either, but have received no email. For those who have gotten one, I'm curious, was it sent by Peebert, or Lobo?
Unless this is an in-joke, it must have been an incredibly long time. Peebert was MIA and of legendary status only at iStock when I started in Dec 2006.
haha.. yeah, I was going to ask "IS Peebert back?!"
-
Good to know the abuses Istock has heaped on contributors have noticeably affected their bottom line.
Rather than sending out maudlin e-mails, they should just scrap the RC system, and go back to paying people as they were originally contracted to do. That should take care of the problem. :)
I couldn't agree more. It also proves that contributors have a lot more power than they believe, if only they could work together and harness it. If enough of us refused to upload any new content until the original royalty system was restored ... it would eventually happen.
If we could manage to coordinate something like that, and it were widespread, I would participate. I don't get nearly the income from Istock I used to, so it wouldn't hurt as much. But Sharpshot is right. No point going out on a limb alone. It needs to be a coordinated effort with many if not all the big and medium players.
-
I've only uploaded a handful of vectors this year - 10 maybe - I got the "Miss You" email...
My bank account is missing the 'old days' a lot more...
-
If we could manage to coordinate something like that, and it were widespread,
How about organizing "a week without uploads"... or a month? What if they would get only half of the uploads they usually get? Maybe that could scare them a bit?
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Are you sure? I'm gold but can not upload more than 30 files/week.Where did you get the info.
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Are you sure? I'm gold but can not upload more than 30 files/week.Where did you get the info.
why don't you read a little this topic? :D
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Are you sure? I'm gold but can not upload more than 30 files/week.Where did you get the info.
why don't you read a little this topic? :D
I have no time to read all the posts. Sorry!
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Are you sure? I'm gold but can not upload more than 30 files/week.Where did you get the info.
why don't you read a little this topic? :D
I have no time to read all the posts. Sorry!
Then you won't find the 'info' you desire will you? Sorry!
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Are you sure? I'm gold but can not upload more than 30 files/week.Where did you get the info.
why don't you read a little this topic? :D
I have no time to read all the posts. Sorry!
Then you won't find the 'info' you desire will you? Sorry!
If I want I will one way or another. Now I have to go back to work. See you later
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Are you sure? I'm gold but can not upload more than 30 files/week.Where did you get the info.
why don't you read a little this topic? :D
I have no time to read all the posts. Sorry!
Then you won't find the 'info' you desire will you? Sorry!
If I want I will one way or another. Now I have to go back to work. See you later
If you took the time to read the posts and properly understand microstock then you might not need to 'go back to work'. Much better to work smart rather than work hard.
-
Microsoft menaced by open source developers ?
Wrong, Linux and the hundreds of different linux distributions and hacks so far only managed to kill the commercial versions of UNIX, see what happened to Unix SCO (formerly Microsoft Xenix), Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, True64, Tandem, etc
Linux/Android also taken over the mobile and Embedded market, but with little if any financial gain by Google being it an open project, and absolutely zero payback for linux distros used inside routers and modems.
What all these freetards are getting back from their hard work is merely a credit line hidden in a few text files and about boxes, as so far the ONLY company making serious bucks on open source is RedHat, anybody else is begging for donations or accepting the fact there's no easy money to be made with free apps that anyone can modify and resell as their own and use in their hardware without giving a dollar back to the author.
How iStock is treating contributors is not much different actually, fees lower than 20% of a sale are simply a joke, can't remember a single other industry where the salesman eat more than 80% of the sale price !
Sort of like giving out our pictures for free ? Almost, and who knows, maybe their plan is going in that direction, wasn't getty already asking 50$ to include 3rd party images in their collection ?
-
I've only uploaded a handful of vectors this year - 10 maybe - I got the "Miss You" email...
My bank account is missing the 'old days' a lot more...
+1
-
so far the ONLY company making serious bucks on open source is RedHat
Not true. For example Microsoft collect patent licence fees on many of the Android devices sold.
Microsoft makes more from Android than Windows on smartphones (http://www.infoworld.com/t/android/microsoft-makes-more-android-windows-smartphones-707)
/OT
-
so far the ONLY company making serious bucks on open source is RedHat
Not true. For example Microsoft collect patent licence fees on many of the Android devices sold.
Microsoft makes more from Android than Windows on smartphones ([url]http://www.infoworld.com/t/android/microsoft-makes-more-android-windows-smartphones-707[/url])
/OT
As a software developer i can't see anything positive in all this nor in patent trolling.
And actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos : there will be always people willing to pay for photo apps, but what about stock photos ? i see dark clouds at the horizon, 2013 can be pretty much the year where we reach the point of non return, Getty and Corbis buying out the few remaining decent agencies and becoming a full closed garden, alamy further reducing fees and trying in vain to become a creative agency, micros hitting the bottom of the barrel and start digging with even lower fees, discounts, giveaways and promotions.
And by the way, microsoft is now pushing hard on photo sharing, Bing, Skydrive, Cloud services, and their new project SOCL, and what about the prominent Metro-Apps for pic sharing embedded in Win8 ?
Nowhere users are told to be careful about copyright or permissions, nowhere i see a "BUY" button, nothing, all i see is SHARE buttons ... that's the future and it ain't change anytime soon, no matter if MS owns Corbis and should know better about these things.
-
One should think that Microsoft knew all about copyright.....
-
actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos
If you want to make money doing photo apps then you need to do it in conjunction with someone who has created a name for themselves in the world of blogging and social media in general. Look for someone with lots of Twitter followers whose Instagrams get 1000s of likes. These are the people who have significantly promoted or have their names most of the successful apps and plugins currently. There are also masses of people selling collections of Lightroom presets on Etsy etc. Obviously it's all about retro and cute currently because we live in such reactionary times.
-
actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos
If you want to make money doing photo apps then you need to do it in conjunction with someone who has created a name for themselves in the world of blogging and social media in general. Look for someone with lots of Twitter followers whose Instagrams get 1000s of likes. These are the people who have significantly promoted or have their names most of the successful apps and plugins currently. There are also masses of people selling collections of Lightroom presets on Etsy etc. Obviously it's all about retro and cute currently because we live in such reactionary times.
Fully agree on the reactionary times, but i fellow the mantra that the customer is always right, they want retro, i'll give em retro.
As for retro, it's pure BS and a fad, a sign of desperation if they have to go back to the '60s look but i could say the same about a few B/W Film zealots i've met who are shooting on a Leica in 2012 thinking they're elitist or original or hip or whatever other new BS buzzword, for fu-cks sake these cameras were used 50 yrs ago if they can't get good results with digital B/W than maybe they better learn how to use PS or LR properly !
Same sh-it going on in music software by the way, a constant back and forth with retro/modern sounds, just to discover that ANY possible sound has been already used and abused in a zillion songs.
Tools like Instamatic are simply a disgrace.
-
As for retro, it's pure BS and a fad, a sign of desperation if they have to go back to the '60s look
It's general cultural fashion at the moment. Most young women round about here (of those who care) are going around in black eyeliner and false lashes. Looks h*llish on anyone with fair skin and blonde to mid-brown or red hair, but do they care?
-
Lets get ahead of the curve then and create an app which makes our pictures look like they were shot with a sub-VGA Casio camera circa 1996. Sooner of later that will be the new look. You'll see it in Vogue and Elle.
In general I reckon that every generation destroys and discredits the immediately previous generation and their style but is in awe of the last but one !
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
And Practice what they Preach.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I'm not sure if the recent revamped version of MSG still has this info but a few months ago I found the hours that we'd all spent logged in here and thought how many more images we'd have produced if we'd stayed away, and how lower some peoples blood pressure may be.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I often wonder if your regular out-of-context use of 'jealous/jealousy' is somehow lost in translation.
-
The point is, should we follow actual trends (ie : Retro-look) or wait for the next trend in the hope we like it ?
I mean, it's an important thing considering the next trend we like could never ever materialize before 2050.
-
As for retro, it's pure BS and a fad, a sign of desperation if they have to go back to the '60s look
It's general cultural fashion at the moment. Most young women round about here (of those who care) are going around in black eyeliner and false lashes. Looks h*llish on anyone with fair skin and blonde to mid-brown or red hair, but do they care?
No they never cared, ever.
Historically women followed fashion trends imposed from the above and if you dare to ask them they will tell you that "i just follow trends, i don't make them", yeah sort of saying i'm a follower and happy about being one, a sheep paying exorbitant prices for clothes that were fashionable when their grandmas were young !
BUT ... let's look a bit deeper on this ... girls don't give a sh-it about all this, all they care is the final result, looking GOOD, no matter what, or if their clothes are modern clones of rags sold used by hippies in the '60s.
Where's the different with the editorial market after all ? magazine want to look good and grab your attention especially on their covers, who cares if it looks retro or whatever ?
And what's "modern" anyway ? If now we all look at Retro in both photography and music and fashion is because there's simply NOTHING new around, anything has been done to death already, over and over, and new cameras are only bringing us more MegaPixels and faster shutter speeds but nothing revolutionary compared to the past.
And here's the point, it's very very hard to make something new using something OLD, we simply reached the point where "new" means a little improving on the latest technology, digital imaging just reached its apex and i can't see anything making a breakthru soon, maybe in pocket cameras but never ever in DSLR.
And yet, imagine having your 100 megapixel pocket camera with F1.4 micro lens .. please tell me where will be the amazing difference with a DSLR with similar specs ?
May we like it or not, anyone can "be" a photographer nowadays, don't you see all these exibitions of people shotting polaroid or iPhone or even webcams ?
Sooner or later it will be just a matter of having big budgets for expensive shoots or being able to reach places nobody else can reach, that's exactly why Paparazzi will never feel the heat from amateurs' competition.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I'm not sure if the recent revamped version of MSG still has this info but a few months ago I found the hours that we'd all spent logged in here and thought how many more images we'd have produced if we'd stayed away, and how lower some peoples blood pressure may be.
Wouldn't make a scrap of difference to me. I only come in when I've got nothing to photograph (e.g it's raining, which it is a lot of the time) or I've got a big processing job under way (e.g. I'm sorting, selecting and processing hundreds of images, not mine and not for stock just now) and I need a break, or lots of breaks. Keeps me sane, really.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I'm not sure if the recent revamped version of MSG still has this info but a few months ago I found the hours that we'd all spent logged in here and thought how many more images we'd have produced if we'd stayed away, and how lower some peoples blood pressure may be.
I've never looked at that info, but I leave a tab open in my browser most of the time. I'm not looking at it, but I bet it registers as me being here, so the number isn't really about active time
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I'm not sure if the recent revamped version of MSG still has this info but a few months ago I found the hours that we'd all spent logged in here and thought how many more images we'd have produced if we'd stayed away, and how lower some peoples blood pressure may be.
I've never looked at that info, but I leave a tab open in my browser most of the time. I'm not looking at it, but I bet it registers as me being here, so the number isn't really about active time
^^ That too. I've got about seven tabs open all the time, one of which is msg.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I'm not sure if the recent revamped version of MSG still has this info but a few months ago I found the hours that we'd all spent logged in here and thought how many more images we'd have produced if we'd stayed away, and how lower some peoples blood pressure may be.
I've never looked at that info, but I leave a tab open in my browser most of the time. I'm not looking at it, but I bet it registers as me being here, so the number isn't really about active time
^^ That too. I've got about seven tabs open all the time, one of which is msg.
Me too. I think it must be a common practice.
-
I wonder.. I haven't uploaded any images in a few months and vectors I haven't uploaded in a few years - and I didn't get any email telling me how much they miss me.
I haven't submitted anything to IS for a long time either, but have received no email. For those who have gotten one, I'm curious, was it sent by Peebert, or Lobo?
Unless this is an in-joke, it must have been an incredibly long time. Peebert was MIA and of legendary status only at iStock when I started in Dec 2006.
I just thought that - given IS's track record for making low quality business decisions - they might have brought Peebert back and put him or Lobo in charge of Customer Relations. It just sounded like something they might do (still haven't gotten my own return-invitation email, and I used to be Gold there).
-
Another one from that Glassdoor site which which jsnover pointed us to where they have the insiders' accounts of working at IS (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/iStockphoto-Reviews-E407322.htm) and Getty (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Getty-Images-Reviews-E7793.htm)
Getty Images, the parent company is slowly but surely deprecating the company and destroying key elements of the culture.(Former Web Applications Developer in Calgary)
I think that pretty much sums it up for the customers and contributors too.
-
Strange thinking here. Its seems as if many here which they would fall? malicious thinking is no good for microstockers. Remember: what goes around comes around.
Microstockers should instead invest their time producing not lend themselves to gossip and jealousy.
I often wonder if your regular out-of-context use of 'jealous/jealousy' is somehow lost in translation.
You mean lost in transition dont you. As a matter of fact........................
-
The upload limit was increased recently.
Non-Exclusive Upload Limits
Default now 28/week (was 18)
Bronze now 30/week (was 20)
Silver now 40/week (was 24)
Gold now 50/week (was 30)
Diamond now 60/week (was 38)
Black Diamond now 70/week (was 40)
Really? That's news to me. Can't find any announcement about that and my upload limit (non exclusive) still says 18 per week. Anyone else know anything about this or have a link? Regards, David.
News to me too. Mine remains at 38.
Yeah, mine is still 24, but that is irrelevant as I stopped uploading there earlier in the year. After being a solid contender for 2nd place each month for years, they fell into last and stayed there. Not even tracking month to month sales there any more, it's in the same bucket as my trial and test accounts.
-
in their eyes even providing free coffee is a matter of "culture" while others take pride in not having smoking rooms or allowing/forcing developers to not wear a tie.
It must be a while since you worked or lived in Europe. Most (if not all) European countries long ago banned smoking in the workplace. I cannot be certain about every single European country but in most European countries companies would not be allowed to have smoking rooms. It comes down to national law.
Much of the other stuff you are concerned with is to do with rights legislation. Companies do not get to choose.
-
Microsoft makes more from Android than Windows on smartphones ([url]http://www.infoworld.com/t/android/microsoft-makes-more-android-windows-smartphones-707[/url])
That article is from june 2011
-
in their eyes even providing free coffee is a matter of "culture" while others take pride in not having smoking rooms or allowing/forcing developers to not wear a tie.
It must be a while since you worked or lived in Europe. Most (if not all) European countries long ago banned smoking in the workplace. I cannot be certain about every single European country but in most European countries companies would not be allowed to have smoking rooms. It comes down to national law.
Much of the other stuff you are concerned with is to do with rights legislation. Companies do not get to choose.
Smokers go outside in Europe. At least at the two large US global companies I worked and work for. You may not even have a roof over your head and be in the pissin rain for all they care.
-
pretty sure that it is SPAM, to get more traffic from google, nice job kobajagrande ;D
my bad, thanks Cory
Yeah right... what do I have from that traffic dude... ;D
And yes, I got that info in the e-mail, one of those "we miss you, come back and upload more (vectors)" as ShadySue said. ;)
This might not be the case with photo contributors, maybe only illustrators, not sure. ???
-
And actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos
Me too. But I just keep reading that the all the money in apps goes to a handful of developers with mega-hits. I think the days of the profitable one-man app ended long ago - and maybe they never happened. Successfull apps and plug-ins are big projects like any other money-making software. Sure it would be fun to create an app that other photographers started buying and using... but wait, I'm only getting 50 cents a sale - it's a familiar feeling, somehow... :)
-
And actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos
Me too. But I just keep reading that the all the money in apps goes to a handful of developers with mega-hits. I think the days of the profitable one-man app ended long ago - and maybe they never happened. Successfull apps and plug-ins are big projects like any other money-making software. Sure it would be fun to create an app that other photographers started buying and using... but wait, I'm only getting 50 cents a sale - it's a familiar feeling, somehow... :)
Probably better to develop an app, use it yourself while the mobilestock trend is still live, then sell it later. Why encourage the opposition, as Sean would say!
-
And actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos
Me too. But I just keep reading that the all the money in apps goes to a handful of developers with mega-hits. I think the days of the profitable one-man app ended long ago - and maybe they never happened. Successfull apps and plug-ins are big projects like any other money-making software. Sure it would be fun to create an app that other photographers started buying and using... but wait, I'm only getting 50 cents a sale - it's a familiar feeling, somehow... :)
Actually i was referring about DESKTOP apps.
I don't even own a smartphone but i could start developing on WinRT/WP8 using the emulator in Visual Studio 2012.
PS Plugins are a BIG mess, the CS6 SDK has near zero decent documentation, you basically use it as a hook to include your own standalone app (as a DLL).
Said that, you must be an expert in Computer Graphics algorithms, and that's not the case for me, i can have the raw idea but i should simulate it using Math tools like MathLab etc you can imagine how long it can take do all this from scratch alone, and not surprisingly there are very few free samples of PS plugins around, the few ones i've found are about very simple stuff, nothing with complex layers and complex tunings.
For instance, there are excellent PS tutorials around that required maybe 20-30 manual steps, wouldn't it be good to make a PS plugin out of it ? Yes, but ... this can really take ages if you have to develop your own standalone app to simulate PS commands, as PS doesn;t give a common API ! the only way you can batch is using PS actions, but on a PS plugin you can't ! So you must do it on your own with the .NET framework, now imagine coding from scratch algos for radial blur etc etc ... c'mon .. it's crazy unless you use 3rd party libraries with ready made CGI apis and that's another big mess anyway ... you've no idea how complex it can get, not to mention if you want to port it to OSX it must be recoded in Objective C using Cocoa framework.
I've the nasty feeling Adobe is keen on keeping PS developming difficult to master as they know it's a gold mine and they don't want the market to be flooded by small plugins as in the past or as now with the 1000s of LR presets.
-
And actually i'm wondering if i could make more money writing photography apps or PS plugins rather than selling photos
Me too. But I just keep reading that the all the money in apps goes to a handful of developers with mega-hits. I think the days of the profitable one-man app ended long ago - and maybe they never happened. Successfull apps and plug-ins are big projects like any other money-making software. Sure it would be fun to create an app that other photographers started buying and using... but wait, I'm only getting 50 cents a sale - it's a familiar feeling, somehow... :)
Actually i was referring about DESKTOP apps.
I don't even own a smartphone but i could start developing on WinRT/WP8 using the emulator in Visual Studio 2012.
PS Plugins are a BIG mess, the CS6 SDK has near zero decent documentation, you basically use it as a hook to include your own standalone app (as a DLL).
Said that, you must be an expert in Computer Graphics algorithms, and that's not the case for me, i can have the raw idea but i should simulate it using Math tools like MathLab etc you can imagine how long it can take do all this from scratch alone, and not surprisingly there are very few free samples of PS plugins around, the few ones i've found are about very simple stuff, nothing with complex layers and complex tunings.
For instance, there are excellent PS tutorials around that required maybe 20-30 manual steps, wouldn't it be good to make a PS plugin out of it ? Yes, but ... this can really take ages if you have to develop your own standalone app to simulate PS commands, as PS doesn;t give a common API ! the only way you can batch is using PS actions, but on a PS plugin you can't ! So you must do it on your own with the .NET framework, now imagine coding from scratch algos for radial blur etc etc ... c'mon .. it's crazy unless you use 3rd party libraries with ready made CGI apis and that's another big mess anyway ... you've no idea how complex it can get, not to mention if you want to port it to OSX it must be recoded in Objective C using Cocoa framework.
I've the nasty feeling Adobe is keen on keeping PS developming difficult to master as they know it's a gold mine and they don't want the market to be flooded by small plugins as in the past or as now with the 1000s of LR presets.
I'm an old school guy and can't get used to desktop applications being called "apps". So if it's for a phone, do we call it a "phone app" or maybe an "app store app"?
I was in software development for a long time, but got out of it last year and recently removed VS2012, XCode and the rest from my hard drive. Nirvana!
My experience is that doing something like a 'plugin' always requires inside-track support from the big boys (Adobe in this case). The publicly available tools and documentation never cut it; to really get anywhere you need to be on the inside track - you have to 'matter' - i.e. your plugin would have to be something Adobe actually wants to happen.
WP8 could be a serious opportunity right about now. The tech press keeps putting it down, discouraging developers, but I think it's going to come on strong.
-
I'm an old school guy and can't get used to desktop applications being called "apps". So if it's for a phone, do we call it a "phone app" or maybe an "app store app"?
I'm a clueless girl who hasn't a clue what the difference between a 'desktop application' and a 'program' is. Is it like a 'proglet' or mini-program?
Care to share? TIA.
-
Its gone a bit off topic. Maybe move this part to a new thread?
-
I'm a clueless girl who hasn't a clue what the difference between a 'desktop application' and a 'program' is.
They are synonyms.
Originally, computers ran programs. Over the years marketing people decided that "program" wasn't cool, so end-user programs became "applications". Strictly speaking, it means a program having a UI with which a user performs high level tasks (i.e. word processing).
When smartphones hit the scene, "application" was replaced with the trendier "app" which I thought meant an application for a phone; but now, people are calling desktop applications "apps" as well, so I give up. :)
-
I'm a clueless girl who hasn't a clue what the difference between a 'desktop application' and a 'program' is.
They are synonyms.
... explanation ...
Tx
-
I just read this on twitter.
"Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped." - African Proverb
Take a look at the download stats (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145) that Sean posted in IS forum; this link was first posted on msg here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/17620/17620/msg284065/#msg284065).
They still refuse to attempt to go back to the point where things began to go wrong for them, and continue to pursue plans which clearly aren't working. I am astonished by that, considering their objective is to increase revenue.
Unless they somehow turn things around with the course they're taking, looks like in a few years time we will be able to do a post-mortem. Of course by that time everything would have been said already as it wasn't sudden death.
-
I'm an old school guy and can't get used to desktop applications being called "apps". So if it's for a phone, do we call it a "phone app" or maybe an "app store app"?
I was in software development for a long time, but got out of it last year and recently removed VS2012, XCode and the rest from my hard drive. Nirvana!
My experience is that doing something like a 'plugin' always requires inside-track support from the big boys (Adobe in this case). The publicly available tools and documentation never cut it; to really get anywhere you need to be on the inside track - you have to 'matter' - i.e. your plugin would have to be something Adobe actually wants to happen.
WP8 could be a serious opportunity right about now. The tech press keeps putting it down, discouraging developers, but I think it's going to come on strong.
Programs, Applications, Apps, whatever, technically they're just either "native code" or "runtime applications" or "just in time (JIT) applications" or "interpreted scripts" or "JIT compiled/pre-compiled scripts" etc.
However it turns, indeed Adobe is making it tough for PS plugin devs, my feeling is if you don't pay to join their partner program (and it seems devoted only to software houses friendly with Adobe) or ain't go far.
It's not at all like writing a plugin for MS word.
All it would take is provide public access for PS APIs but they don't want, as the plugin market must be a gold mine and they don't want newbies messing around.
Fully agree on WP8 and if i start getting on with WinRT and the emulator i could even buy a WP8 phone to make some commercial apps, we'll see, after all WinRT is basically a wrapper for the old .NET Compact
-
Should we not also take into account the sheer number of photographers now in the ms game?
most of you veterans have a strong dislike of newbies (don't deny it, we all feel it), and I wonder how many more of us are jumping into ms to help supplement our income? I'm not a huge threat on my own; I only have a small port that I grown in tiny steps as I take more stocky shots on my various jobs in the real world. But there are more of us who do this and are we also not having an impact?
it's in every genre. The magazine I work for continually seek out newbies who work for free. Family portraiture is a joke nowadays, with some offering shoots for under $100.
Income for photography work is on a downward trend everywhere.
-
^^^Newbies don't seem to of hit my earnings with SS. They may have some effect but its nothing compared to commission cuts and all the other detrimental changes that istock have made over the past few years.
-
most of you veterans have a strong dislike of newbies (don't deny it, we all feel it), and I wonder how many more of us are jumping into ms to help supplement our income? I'm not a huge threat on my own; I only have a small port that I grown in tiny steps as I take more stocky shots on my various jobs in the real world. But there are more of us who do this and are we also not having an impact?
Genuine 'newbies' concern me a lot less than established players, basically because their work isn't usually good enough or at least stock-oriented enough to be much of a threat. I think producing stock images, that are good enough to compete with the best in their genre, is genuinely difficult and takes most of us years to learn (unless your name happens to be Yuri or Sean). Let's say you happened to have the best-selling image of a 'widget-pin' on the various agencies. Who would you rather have uploading new 'widget-pin' images __ a newbie or an established contributor with 100K+ sales? I know which I'd rather have.
I'm incredibly grateful that I stumbled upon microstock just as it was really starting and was able to learn in the days when pretty much any image sold, enough to make it worthwhile, provided it was technically adequate to pass inspection. When I started SS had fewer than 35K images (of which 30K were Jon's own portfolio) and, if I remember correctly, IS had just over 60K images. Lise Gagne had just passed the staggering figure of 25K sales and become Istock's first ever 'Diamond' contributor. It was a year before Yuri even picked up a camera and it took the best part of another year before he learned what to do with it. Heady days indeed!
If I was starting microstock now, with the level of skill and the understanding of stock that I had back then, I can't imagine that I'd get very far. I'm sure I'd find that the level of sales would not be enough to be motivating, that's assuming I could get my stuff accepted in the first place. Nope, I feel genuinely sorry for today's newbies and admire their persistence in attempting to compete against the 20M+ images that weren't there when I started. Good luck to them! We 'veterans' were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
-
I started microstock in february 2012. Even march was better for the first 12 days than this month. By that time, I had 80 images, now I have 433. So I have wme I think. I'm loosing my trust in their reported sales....
-
Vannphoto, I'm 100% with Gostwyck on this. The inspections are so tough and the sales per file so low today that I actually doubt whether more than a handful of newbies will stick around long enough to affect sales for the old timers. I wrote a couple of blogs two years back about how to do microstock, with the aim of picking up some referral earnings, but then I stopped because I reached the conclusion that it was just wasting people's time to encourage them to join. I've got a couple of dozen referred photographers on Shutterstock and only one of them has got a portfolio online there and that only sells anything once in a blue moon - one sale last month, I think.
-
Whilst I realise that this doesn't necessary mean that he's staying at the helm precisely as he is now, I see nothing but optimism for the future of SS in this interview. He doesn't sound like someone who wants to walk away from his creation:
[url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url] ([url]http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/shutterstock-ceo-jon-oringer-on-ipo-success-the-future-of-video/[/url])
No he wont just walk away, but with a few billion quid in the pocket ofcourse he will leave the admin and running of the company to others.
Thats not the problem. Problem is and will alway be after an IPO. Once the shareholders start their yearning for profits the troubles start. Its a classic and always follows and to think SS will be the first one not to be effected, well thats to be naive.
Anyhow, wait and see.
I tend to look to facts over warm fuzzy feelings to predict the future.
Jon mentioned at approx. 05:32 in this guardian podcast that he has no intention of granting us cost of living/doing business royalty increases in the foreseeable future. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/audio/2012/dec/11/audio-tech-weekly-podcast-bitcoin-shutterstock (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/audio/2012/dec/11/audio-tech-weekly-podcast-bitcoin-shutterstock)
And the Venture Capitalist look to have prime positions in place internally to negatively influence our income longer term. I am sure those key people are in place to cash out the Venture capitalists position and glean as much cash as they are able to wring out of SS.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW1046893.htm (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW1046893.htm)
“It used to be better”
Current Shutterstock Employee – Reviewed Aug 2, 2011
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 Senior Management – The company is either a start up or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.
Conversation about site programming
http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Shutterstock-Interview-RVW597821.htm (http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Shutterstock-Interview-RVW597821.htm)
-
Heady days indeed!
If I was starting microstock now, with the level of skill and the understanding of stock that I had back then, I can't imagine that I'd get very far. I'm sure I'd find that the level of sales would not be enough to be motivating, that's assuming I could get my stuff accepted in the first place. Nope, I feel genuinely sorry for today's newbies and admire their persistence in attempting to compete against the 20M+ images that weren't there when I started. Good luck to them! We 'veterans' were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.
great post.
Although Rebecca (?) did say there are too many contributors/too many files compared to buyer numbers?
-
Although Rebecca (?) did say there are too many contributors/too many files compared to buyer numbers?
That's bollocks __ not you, but what Rebecca said. Honestly, there's still loads of opportunities, but only if you're good enough to take advantage of them. That's where the 'veterans' still have a huge advantage.
It's difficult to explain but it seems to me that every 18 months or so, or thereabouts, I suddenly seem to produce better images than I did before. It's as if I can suddenly 'see' better, at least in terms of commercial worth, and my work improves markedly for no obvious reason other than ... it does. Improvement seems to come in step-changes, rather than in gradual, almost imperceptible, increases as you might reasonably expect. Even 8 years in to 'my journey', if you'll pardon such a vomit-inducing expression, it is still happening. It's f*cking weird but I'm convinced, and the sales confirm it, that I'm suddenly producing better work now than I was only 6 months or so ago. That's why newbies don't worry me at all!
-
Although Rebecca (?) did say there are too many contributors/too many files compared to buyer numbers?
That's bollocks __ not you, but what Rebecca said. Honestly, there's still loads of opportunities, but only if you're good enough to take advantage of them. That's where the 'veterans' still have a huge advantage.
It's difficult to explain but it seems to me that every 18 months or so, or thereabouts, I suddenly seem to produce better images than I did before. It's as if I can suddenly 'see' better, at least in terms of commercial worth, and my work improves markedly for no obvious reason other than ... it does. Improvement seems to come in step-changes, rather than in gradual, almost imperceptible, increases as you might reasonably expect. Even 8 years in to 'my journey', if you'll pardon such a vomit-inducing expression, it is still happening. It's f*cking weird but I'm convinced, and the sales confirm it, that I'm suddenly producing better work now than I was only 6 months or so ago. That's why newbies don't worry me at all!
this post is a beauty :)
I agree with every word of it, but I will focus on your first sentence..
Rebecca is so "lying in public" she should be punished for that.. she lies at absurd levels it's not even funny..
istock is screwed and they know it.. They just CAN'T admit it.. YET!
who here were expecting her to say "yes, we are screwed, just hand in your crowns already, there is no hope for the company"?
Come on now :) I said it before, most contributors are too good, they will believe anything..
We have read that people report incredible drops in income, in as little as 1 month.. I am sorry but newcomers and their mostly subpar content just don't "double" in such a short period where it will impact sales all that much..
It's mostly that the new best match favors their wholly owned content but they still have to lose money because their agency images are the crappiest I have seen in microstock industry and they are overpriced..
They ARE going down guys.. just don't let them fool you..
-
My partner who is exclusive at iStock with a decent portfolio of 2000 images (including lots of Vettas) has earned $8 this week. Mine is down to 25% of what it was this time last year, I honestly don't think the management realise the gravity of what is happening over there.
I'm guessing the situation is eating it's way in and will only be a matter of time time before it reaches the top contributors.
What they don't seem to realise is their supply chain is mostly sole traders and that business model is now broken. They may survive a little while as a library but the returns are just not there anymore to make it worth uploading.
The will be a hell of lot more indies next year thats for sure.
-
That's very sad. I feel your pain. I wish I could rename this thread I started to "The Fall Of The Man On The Street" because in the end Getty will still stand.
Only the people doing the hard labor to create content, and trying to continue to make a living from a business model they were all lead to believe had a stable platform, are now being left to fall with no safety net.
We only have ourselves to blame I guess when we assumed a company wasn't capable of destroying a good business purely out of greed and mismanagement.
One day people will look back at iStock as a case study on how a multimillion dollar Internet company painfully destroyed itself in the course of a few of years.
What a pity.
-
My partner who is exclusive at iStock with a decent portfolio of 2000 images (including lots of Vettas) has earned $8 this week. Mine is down to 25% of what it was this time last year, I honestly don't think the management realise the gravity of what is happening over there.
I'm guessing the situation is eating it's way in and will only be a matter of time time before it reaches the top contributors.
What they don't seem to realise is their supply chain is mostly sole traders and that business model is now broken. They may survive a little while as a library but the returns are just not there anymore to make it worth uploading.
The will be a hell of lot more indies next year thats for sure.
Matt. sorry to hear this. The slide has already hit some of the top contributors. I know one with a port of 6K files, big earner and he is down 50% and thats within the last nine months.
The problem here and after speaking to some people is probably that Getty simply dont give a c#ap of what happens to IS. I am sure that the suits at Getty view this micro industry as the ones that spoiled it all and thats that. Well in a sense theyre not really far off are they?
Its a natural progression. Take SS now after the IPO, etc. I mean how long will it take before the bosses, admin start to relax and look for other business ventures and so on, I would say six months no longer.
I also think youre right, there will be an endless stream of indies coming and indies with great commercial ports and the supply will outstrip the demand by 100-1 and thats the end of this business or at least as far as earnings are concerned.
-
That's very sad. I feel your pain. I wish I could rename this thread I started to "The Fall Of The Man On The Street" because in the end Getty will still stand.
Only the people doing the hard labor to create content, and trying to continue to make a living from a business model they were all lead to believe had a stable platform, are now being left to fall with no safety net.
We only have ourselves to blame I guess when we assumed a company wasn't capable of destroying a good business purely out of greed and mismanagement.
One day people will look back at iStock as a case study on how a multimillion dollar Internet company painfully destroyed itself in the course of a few of years.
What a pity.
In a way it's not a pity. Quite the reverse in fact.
There is another microstock agency who have never reduced contributors' commissions, have never lied to their contributors, that have kept their site working pretty much 100% despite numerous upgrades, do not load currency exchanges with a 20% 'hedge' surcharge that contributors don't benefit from, have never clawed back commissions due to supposed 'credit card fraud' or whatever, do have a track record of 8 years of rising sales, have only introduced 3 price rises to customers in their history, do not reduce commissions when they give discounts to customers, do treat all contributors the same with no favour given in the sort-order ... etc, etc, etc.
Who would you want to become the dominant force in microstock? The nameless, greedy, lying f*cks at Istock/Getty or the honourable Mr Oringer, who publishes his financial accounts every quarter?
F*ck Istock. They gained a position of power and they abused it comprehensively to both contributors and customers alike. Now they are paying for it. Good.
-
Sigh! talk about being repetative and living in a fools paradise. Yeah all that was also said about IS a year before the big freeze.
I am a bit surprise that YOU of all is so easily bought and by what? a few BMEs? well we have all had that, no big deal at all.
-
Who would you want to become the dominant force in microstock? The nameless, greedy, lying f*cks at Istock/Getty or the honourable Mr Oringer, who publishes his financial accounts every quarter?
F*ck Istock. They gained a position of power and they abused it comprehensively to both contributors and customers alike. Now they are paying for it. Good.
Couldn't agree more.
-
Who would you want to become the dominant force in microstock? The nameless, greedy, lying f*cks at Istock/Getty or the honourable Mr Oringer, who publishes his financial accounts every quarter?
F*ck Istock. They gained a position of power and they abused it comprehensively to both contributors and customers alike. Now they are paying for it. Good.
Couldn't agree more.
yep make it two
-
Sigh! talk about being repetative and living in a fools paradise. Yeah all that was also said about IS a year before the big freeze.
I am a bit surprise that YOU of all is so easily bought and by what? a few BMEs? well we have all had that, no big deal at all.
+1
-
F*ck Istock. They gained a position of power and they abused it comprehensively to both contributors and customers alike. Now they are paying for it. Good.
Agree wholeheartedly.
One minor disagreement/correction. You use the word commission to refer to the payments we receive. The correct term is royalty. Commissions are what agents get for services rendered on our behalf, not what they pay us.
-
One minor disagreement/correction. You use the word commission to refer to the payments we receive. The correct term is royalty. Commissions are what agents get for services rendered on our behalf, not what they pay us.
You're right! Thanks for that. 'Royalty' it is. I wonder how we got talking about 'commission' all this time without anybody pointing out the error before?
-
Who would you want to become the dominant force in microstock? The nameless, greedy, lying f*cks at Istock/Getty or the honourable Mr Oringer, who publishes his financial accounts every quarter?
I'm going to go with neither. I actually don't think there should be a dominant agency at all. If nothing else, this iStock lesson should teach us that you want an agency that actually represents you and not some crowd-sourced juggernaut.
-
Who would you want to become the dominant force in microstock? The nameless, greedy, lying f*cks at Istock/Getty or the honourable Mr Oringer, who publishes his financial accounts every quarter?
I'm going to go with neither. I actually don't think there should be a dominant agency at all. If nothing else, this iStock lesson should teach us that you want an agency that actually represents you and not some crowd-sourced juggernaut.
Exactly. I couldn`t agree more.
-
Well... perhaps we're all masochists or playing 'better the devil you know'... but I'm not really up for exploring other territories right now. Too much else going on in my life. Given the scenario we have in the microstock model at this point, I'd certainly vote for SS over iStock. So I'm (unsurpringly) adding a 'me three' to Gostwyck's post.
-
Who would you want to become the dominant force in microstock? The nameless, greedy, lying f*cks at Istock/Getty or the honourable Mr Oringer, who publishes his financial accounts every quarter?
I'm going to go with neither. I actually don't think there should be a dominant agency at all. If nothing else, this iStock lesson should teach us that you want an agency that actually represents you and not some crowd-sourced juggernaut.
Indeed, they're all fighting for the same market share, and when they can't get that the only option left to grow that business is higher prices and reduced royalties. iStock is a fable for the industry as a whole.
-
Indeed, they're all fighting for the same market share, and when they can't get that the only option left to grow that business is higher prices and reduced royalties. iStock is a fable for the industry as a whole.
No __ it's the exact opposite of that. SS is growing, and the others are failing, precisely because they're not increasing prices and reducing royalties. SS is the proof that you can grow a business without resorting to such tactics. Indeed, they're the proof that it's probably the only way to grow the business. You have to take care of your customers and your contributors.
Nothing whatsoever new about that. Twas ever thus.
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Same as what happens when you stop growing. Nothing goes up forever however your best chance of maintaining growth is the adherence of good and fair business practices. No point in committing 'business suicide' is there?
Ever heard of the John Lewis Partnership in the UK? For a high-street retailer they're doing amazingly well despite the recession and Johnny Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership)
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
I'm assuming that the natural rise and fall of things will mean that SS will not always be at the top of the earnings heap. I do think that the ability to supply whoever appears to be doing the best at the moment is the key to survival. I had really hoped in 2008 that in spite of Getty, iStock could be a solid, powerful agent to represent my work. Obviously I no longer believe that given my return to independence last year.
I'm really sorry to hear about your partner's week - I made more than that on Monday with my paltry 17% royalties and indie prices. Not saying that to gloat, but just to point out that in spite of the scary thought of dropping to a low royalty rate, there are options.
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Are you trying to insinuate that things change and we should plan ahead?
That's crazy talk. ;D
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Oh Matt dont worry according to some here it will just grow and grow they will buy Getty, Apple and microsoft and become the worlds most successful company, they will make Mr Buffett and the Queen of England look like piss poor idiots and just guess who wioll be the CEO of it all?
The rest of us will join the dole que and live under the bridges at Waterloo station or the Brixton card board city. WOOYAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! ;D
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Same as what happens when you stop growing. Nothing goes up forever however your best chance of maintaining growth is the adherence of good and fair business practices. No point in committing 'business suicide' is there?
Ever heard of the John Lewis Partnership in the UK? For a high-street retailer they're doing amazingly well despite the recession and Johnny Internet.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership[/url])
The shareholders will still want growth in profits and returns on their investment wether SS grow market share or not which will leave only a couple of options. It may be rosy there now but they will experience the same problems as iStock at some point in the future.
The John Lewis Partnership is owned by the employees, completely different to Shutter Stock which is owned by the share holders. Your not an employee of Shutter Stock or a part owner, you don't get a share of the profits, the share holders own the company.
You may experience more sales as they take market share from iStock, but SS and the shareholders keep the extra profit. I think you're confused there.
-
Well... perhaps we're all masochists or playing 'better the devil you know'... but I'm not really up for exploring other territories right now. Too much else going on in my life. Given the scenario we have in the microstock model at this point, I'd certainly vote for SS over iStock. So I'm (unsurpringly) adding a 'me three' to Gostwyck's post.
Ofcourse we are all here for SS, I was one ( still am ) one who has always been one of their ambassadors, was even accused of that here a few months back.
Having said that, going by the past history and track record of all micro, I am not going to allow myself any Euforia and certainly not slowly drift away into a dreamland of security and wonderful revenues past you wildest dreams and all this dpending on one single agency. No Madam.
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Same as what happens when you stop growing. Nothing goes up forever however your best chance of maintaining growth is the adherence of good and fair business practices. No point in committing 'business suicide' is there?
Ever heard of the John Lewis Partnership in the UK? For a high-street retailer they're doing amazingly well despite the recession and Johnny Internet.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership[/url])
The shareholders will still want growth in profits and returns on their investment wether SS grow market share or not which will leave only a couple of options. It may be rosy there now but they will experience the same problems as iStock at some point in the future.
The John Lewis Partnership is owned by the employees, completely different to Shutter Stock which is owned by the share holders. Your not an employee of Shutter Stock or a part owner, you don't get a share of the profits, the share holders own the company.
You may experience more sales as they take market share from iStock, but SS and the shareholders keep the extra profit. I think you're confused there.
OOooops! yes, ha, ha, the shareholders? oh well some tend to forget that. Just a minor problem, they will be happy with a bone or something and they wont insist on more profit. Theyre happy just turning burgers at Mac.
-
The John Lewis Partnership is owned by the employees, completely different to Shutter Stock which is owned by the share holders....
I don't think that's correct, as SS didn't give shareholders the majority of the company. So Jon Oringer still has control of the company. The time to panic is when he sells his controlling stake. Hopefully that wont be any time soon.
-
One minor disagreement/correction. You use the word commission to refer to the payments we receive. The correct term is royalty. Commissions are what agents get for services rendered on our behalf, not what they pay us.
You're right! Thanks for that. 'Royalty' it is. I wonder how we got talking about 'commission' all this time without anybody pointing out the error before?
He is right, however it's commonly referred to as commissions, at least in microstock. I think because many ms sites use the word commissions when referring to royalties.
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
why do you have to "have" one agency that is above all others?
spread your work to many agencies and stop worrying..
if shutterstock stops growing, it means another one is taking the money and if you are on it as well, you don't lose anything..
being a non-exclusive since the beginning, I never had worries, because if one agency went down, there was always another one that went up.. That's a rule..
-
OOooops! yes, ha, ha, the shareholders? oh well some tend to forget that. Just a minor problem, they will be happy with a bone or something and they wont insist on more profit. Theyre happy just turning burgers at Mac.
Perhaps you could explain to me how people who hold a minority of the shares in a company can insist on anything? I could buy some shares in Google, go to their AGM and insist that they only ever use yellow text but they will just ignore me, probably :)
The shareholders will want to see their investment growing but they only really have the option of selling their shares. If they buy shares, they are just gambling that they will increase in value. They can't insist on it.
-
Ofcourse we are all here for SS, I was one ( still am ) one who has always been one of their ambassadors, was even accused of that here a few months back.
Having said that, going by the past history and track record of all micro, I am not going to allow myself any Euforia and certainly not slowly drift away into a dreamland of security and wonderful revenues past you wildest dreams and all this dpending on one single agency. No Madam.
Neither am I Sir. Just working hard at it, favouring and praising the agencies which serve me best at a given time, airing views on poor treatment, constantly improving quality and hoping for the best. Not preparing for the worst just yet.
Nothing lasts forever. I'm sure we all know that. It's not a crime to express pleasure when and where things go well is it? As in life in general... even if things should fall apart in the future, it's important to enjoy what's there to be enjoyed right now.
-
I'm really sorry to hear about your partner's week - I made more than that on Monday with my paltry 17% royalties and indie prices. Not saying that to gloat, but just to point out that in spite of the scary thought of dropping to a low royalty rate, there are options.
Thanks, I know your not gloating :-) It just illustrates how bad it's got over there. We're getting ready for the other options now, luckily I have a graphic design business to fall back on and my partner has got another job. At least the decision is made for me, no more hand wringing wondering if it's the right decision is anymore.
I have a friend who is a full timer with a port x3 mine, he's getting ready to sell his house. It's hitting people who have fully dedicated really hard. It will start catching up to the black diamonds soon, then sh*t really will hit the fan.
-
What happens when Shutter Stock stop growing?
Same as what happens when you stop growing. Nothing goes up forever however your best chance of maintaining growth is the adherence of good and fair business practices. No point in committing 'business suicide' is there?
Ever heard of the John Lewis Partnership in the UK? For a high-street retailer they're doing amazingly well despite the recession and Johnny Internet.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership[/url])
The shareholders will still want growth in profits and returns on their investment wether SS grow market share or not which will leave only a couple of options. It may be rosy there now but they will experience the same problems as iStock at some point in the future.
The John Lewis Partnership is owned by the employees, completely different to Shutter Stock which is owned by the share holders. Your not an employee of Shutter Stock or a part owner, you don't get a share of the profits, the share holders own the company.
You may experience more sales as they take market share from iStock, but SS and the shareholders keep the extra profit. I think you're confused there.
Well, for starters, there's nothing stopping you or me from becoming shareholders of SS and thereby sharing in the profits. You can't do that with your beloved Istock can you? I think you're confused there.
No business grows forever. Take Tesco for example. Until recently they were so successful that £1 in every £8 spent by UK consumers was spent with them. Where do they go from there? Can they get to £1 in every £1? Of course not. They've tried to expand into the US but had to retreat in embarassing defeat. Maybe they should increase prices massively in the UK, just like Istock? That would work to boost profits wouldn't it?
I don't actually understand why you are trying to justify Istock's outrageous and greedy actions whilst at the same time complaining that you and the missus aren't making much money with them.
-
Sorry Matt... I completely neglected to comment on your post, and now you've reminded me of it I feel bad about the one I posted above.
I'm very sorry to hear your news as well as your friend's(!) I really hope things turn around for you all.
-
BTW Gostwyck, thanks for the John Lewis link. I didn't realise they owned so many other companies! I may well change my shopping habits in light of that (I already boycott Tescos).
-
Take Tesco for example. Until recently they were so successful that £1 in every £8 spent by UK consumers was spent with them. Where do they go from there? Can they get to £1 in every £1? Of course not. They've tried to expand into the US but had to retreat in embarassing defeat. .
They should try to expand into Italy, where British products - as simple as noodles, baked beans, jam, mustard and cheddar cheese - are usually found in the "Prodotti etnici / Cibi dal mondo" [Ethnic products / Food from the world] area in local supermarkets, together with exhotic Asian and African products. Kinda ridiculous.
And stock agencies should do the same - trying to find new markets for their products instead of just stealing customers from their competitors.
My impression - from the few data we have (or had) about buyers, such as from Fotolia (once upon a time) and from Shutterstock's map - is that European sales are a lot better in UK and Germany than in the rest of Europe.
-
I don't actually understand why you are trying to justify Istock's outrageous and greedy actions whilst at the same time complaining that you and the missus aren't making much money with them.
I'm not, they've effectively wrecked my stock photo business, of course I'm not happy about it.
I'm just trying to explain (not justify) why it's happened and how SS may well end up going down the same road. Jon Oringer has already said even though the company has grown so have their operating costs, their profits have remained flat, just like iStocks did. The story won't end with iStock or Getty, you have an overall microstock market that has reached maturity, there isn't a single agency that has resisted the temptation to grow profit by reducing royalties. I doubt Shutterstock will be immune, maybe not now but when they can't grab anymore market share or reduce their operating costs.
http://pdnpulse.com/tag/jonathan-oringer (http://pdnpulse.com/tag/jonathan-oringer)
The John Lewis Partnership is a great business model, unfortunately the agencies out there just aren't set up like this.
-
I'm just trying to explain (not justify) why it's happened and how SS may well end up going down the same road. Jon Oringer has already said even though the company has grown so have their operating costs, their profits have remained flat, just like iStocks did. The story won't end with iStock or Getty, you have an overall microstock market that has reached maturity, there isn't a single agency that has resisted the temptation to grow profit by reducing royalties. I doubt Shutterstock will be immune, maybe not now but when they can't grab anymore market share or reduce their operating costs.
Exactly. All the photographers currently lining up to wax Oringer's car are setting themselves up for disappointment. Flat profits + new investors = major cost-cutting to come.
-
There's no knight on a white charger anywhere in sight...
However, there are a couple of key differences between iStock's situation and Shutterstock's:
SS's founder is still around, IS's isn't
Getty was founded by people with no interest in the product they sold, per se, just a vision that if they bought up all the agencies they could control the market and be successful (I'm paraphrasing, but Jonathan Klein has said this in interviews). SS is in business to make money, but it was founded by someone with an interest in the dog food he was selling (from a software business maxim that you should eat your own dog food; not a reflection on image quality)
SS is now answerable to shareholders who want to see a profitable business. Getty once was, but got bought out after their stock was hammered. The last owners - Hellman & Friedman - and current - Carlyle group - are private equity firms. They have zero interest in the business long term, just want to do 3-5 years and collect their check. They don't care if the business goes under after they leave as long as they have their money.
Any dominant business runs the risk of becoming complacent, greedy or lazy. It could happen to SS. However there is still at least the potential for some upside there.
With a business owned by private equity companies, there is no possibility for any upside except for the private equity companies
-
I'm just trying to explain (not justify) why it's happened and how SS may well end up going down the same road. Jon Oringer has already said even though the company has grown so have their operating costs, their profits have remained flat, just like iStocks did. The story won't end with iStock or Getty, you have an overall microstock market that has reached maturity, there isn't a single agency that has resisted the temptation to grow profit by reducing royalties. I doubt Shutterstock will be immune, maybe not now but when they can't grab anymore market share or reduce their operating costs.
Exactly. All the photographers currently lining up to wax Oringer's car are setting themselves up for disappointment. Flat profits + new investors = major cost-cutting to come.
For what I understand the IPO raised money to invest in making SS bigger by opening an office in Asia or thereabouts, marketing purposes and expanding their core business, which will create more profits. So not cuts are needed at all. Thats a myth. Cutting cost is easy, understanding the rootcause and resolving the problem, is where lots of companies fail. DMAIC - LSS, look it up, is what a lot of companies are lacking. Randomly cutting back on personnel for example is not going to help you, if you dont fix the problem that is actually costing you money.
-
Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.
Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people´s businesses.
Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.
SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn´t.
Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?
-
I'm just trying to explain (not justify) why it's happened and how SS may well end up going down the same road. Jon Oringer has already said even though the company has grown so have their operating costs, their profits have remained flat, just like iStocks did. The story won't end with iStock or Getty, you have an overall microstock market that has reached maturity, there isn't a single agency that has resisted the temptation to grow profit by reducing royalties. I doubt Shutterstock will be immune, maybe not now but when they can't grab anymore market share or reduce their operating costs.
Exactly. All the photographers currently lining up to wax Oringer's car are setting themselves up for disappointment. Flat profits + new investors = major cost-cutting to come.
Exactly! spot on! its really surprising after all these years to hear some people still believing in the fairy godmother as if 7 years of history here hasnt sunk in one millimeter.
-
Nobody is exclusive at SS. I really don´t think you can compare any praise heaped on Oringer to the way we wooyayed at istock.
The independents can just sit back and relax and see which agency rises and falls. their files are everyhwere.
-
Crikey Christian. Couldn't you just change your position on SS without verbally clobbering everyone that holds the same view you held until a short time ago?
Calm down me ol' matey. :)
-
Great points Cobalt. They do express a very different outlook and a very different sense of where they are right now.
I think it's perfectly rational, with such an uncertain future all-round, to feel more positive about an agency that has shown incredible stability and growth through rocky times - and which hasn't given us any nasty and unwelcome surprises.
It's just nice to feel positive, frankly... and at least SS isn't being swamped with wholly-owned content to compete with our efforts.
-
Nobody is exclusive at SS. I really don´t think you can compare any praise heaped on Oringer to the way we wooyayed at istock.
The independents can just sit back and relax and see which agency rises and falls. their files are everyhwere.
That's definitely true. But when you see people saying SS is over 50% of their income, it definitely looks like they are setting themselves up for the same situation regardless of exclusivity.
-
Once a company goes public, the founders inevitably lose control - that's what "going public" means. It's not about opening the doors to tour groups - it's about surrendering control in exchange for money. First-round investors don't just want profits - they want increasing profits, in fact increasing at a certain rate. That's how they intend to make money on their investment - by boosting the share price. They're not in it for the dividend checks. THis is a web company, not an electric utility. It's not a long-term holding.
Corporate America eventually arrives at the same end result regardless of the starting conditions. It's a mill that grinds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.
-
Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.
Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people´s businesses.
Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.
SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn´t.
Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?
Well said Jasmine. There's only one way that the market's heading.
That crown you're wearing doesn't seem to fit though. Crowns are so 2006 nowadays. Get up to date, get rid of it and look like a proper 'modern independent content provider'. Because you're worth it.
-
[That's definitely true. But when you see people saying SS is over 50% of their income, it definitely looks like they are setting themselves up for the same situation regardless of exclusivity.
I'd agree but it really isn't something we have any control of __ it's just where all the customers are choosing to buy.
-
No business grows forever. Take Tesco for example. Until recently they were so successful that £1 in every £8 spent by UK consumers was spent with them. Where do they go from there? Can they get to £1 in every £1? Of course not. They've tried to expand into the US but had to retreat in embarassing defeat.
Just been to Shanghai and shot Chinese consumers pushing Tesco trolleys full to the brim out of Tesco's. There's no stopping them.
-
Nobody is exclusive at SS. I really don´t think you can compare any praise heaped on Oringer to the way we wooyayed at istock.
The independents can just sit back and relax and see which agency rises and falls. their files are everyhwere.
Exactly!
I don't know why people are making such a big deal about SS :)
I mentioned it before, and saying it again.. I have been in this business long enough to know that there is always an agency to compensate the possible fall of another.. Because customers leave one agency to go to another one.. They don't just stop buying..
for example depositphotos is on the rise and I see them as a major player in 2 years.. I have been with them from the start and they now make 10 times the amount they did 2 years ago.. regardless of how many contributors joined, depositphotos did not slow down at all.. at current growth rate, they will be number 2 agency in 2 years time.. I have no doubt..
I make 6 times less on IS with 4 times more files, compared to 3 years ago.. You would think I am losing money.. Nope, I actually make %30 more thanks to the rise of the likes of 123rf, depositphotos, canstockphoto, clipartof, veer, yaymicro, zazzle etc.
It's so obvious where istock customers ended up..
One thing about non-exclusivity is that it is definitely stable.. even if there is going to be a downward trend, it will come with a warning, it will happen slowly so you can produce faster to compensate.. it's not like istock's best match changes that suddenly kill your earnings..
-
For now I am video independent and looking at all my options carefully ;).
If I really want to move out, there is a lot of work to do. I have seen too many people drop the crown out of emotion with no proper planning what to do next.
Before Rebecca came into the forum and when I thought best match was truly broken, not intentionally working against us, I was very excited about E+ on Getty.
That excitement has cooled off considerably because it is obvious they can dial our content up and down, however it suits them.
The pessimistic attitude towards sales and growth speaks volumes of their intentions. I cannot base my life on whatever "secret expectations" they might have.
So yes, I am looking at options, like I suppose are most exclusives. Unfortunatly not everyone is as talented as Sean. I wish I could build something like accordstock.
-
No business grows forever. Take Tesco for example. Until recently they were so successful that £1 in every £8 spent by UK consumers was spent with them. Where do they go from there? Can they get to £1 in every £1? Of course not. They've tried to expand into the US but had to retreat in embarassing defeat.
Just been to Shanghai and shot Chinese consumers pushing Tesco trolleys full to the brim out of Tesco's. There's no stopping them.
Sshhh __ I know! They're all over Thailand like a rash too. 'Tesco Lotus' they call themselves there and pay their employees about 8000Bt (roughly $200) per month for 12 hours a day, 7 days per week.
-
So yes, I am looking at options, like I suppose are most exclusives. Unfortunatly not everyone is as talented as Sean. I wish I could build something like accordstock.
accordstock? this is accordstock: http://www.ktools.net/photostore/ (http://www.ktools.net/photostore/)
functional out of the box.. Edit the looks of it, which is pretty easy, and you will have your own accordstock..
no need to be a genius..
-
Thank you! I will look into this with someone who is more computer literate than me. My humble website needs an overhaul anyway. Maybe we could include this.
I guess as an exclusive I really know nothing about the world out there, do I?
-
Once a company goes public, the founders inevitably lose control - that's what "going public" means. It's not about opening the doors to tour groups - it's about surrendering control in exchange for money. First-round investors don't just want profits - they want increasing profits, in fact increasing at a certain rate. That's how they intend to make money on their investment - by boosting the share price. They're not in it for the dividend checks. THis is a web company, not an electric utility. It's not a long-term holding.
Corporate America eventually arrives at the same end result regardless of the starting conditions. It's a mill that grinds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.
Do you watch The Dragons Den? Here in the UK its a program about 5 investors and entrepreneurs pitch their idea or business to them and when the investors see a profitable pitch they will invest. But what I get from them is that they want a is a good working relationship, get their money back as fast as possible, but they never want to run a business into the ground to make a quick buck. What good is it do them do get their profits and then run it into the ground? They want to get that % equity for as long as they can. They invest their money, expertise and resources and work with the entrepreneurs to build a successful sustainable business. So why would SS investors ruin a business? Because its done over at IS doesnt mean all investors work like that. Plus he is still majority stake holder so he calls the final shots. If he doesnt want his business to be run into the ground, it wont happen.
-
Yes, you can include it and it works fine, mostly, out of the box. You'll be limited a bit if you can't program a little and have lots of time to fiddle. Also the existing management options and controls can be confusing.
Everyone seems to like the 'zoom' which is in the regular code. It isn't great for bandwidth tho, because it sucks down a large file with every detail page load - I think the image on the page is just the larger image resized with CSS.
-
Yes, you can include it and it works fine, mostly, out of the box. You'll be limited a bit if you can't program a little and have lots of time to fiddle. Also the existing management options and controls can be confusing.
Everyone seems to like the 'zoom' which is in the regular code. It isn't great for bandwidth tho, because it sucks down a large file with every detail page load - I think the image on the page is just the larger image resized with CSS.
The day I have to worry about bandwidth because thousands of people are looking at and buying my images will be a day I don't have to worry about the extra charges!
-
Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.
Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people´s businesses.
Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.
SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn´t.
Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?
Venture Capitalist's like to see a return on their investment and if they can grow to the point they no longer see future growth you can be sure they and Mr. Oringer will cash out before the company starts it's decline. The VC's seem to have placed key people in SS management to assure that they maximize their investment.
Now if you were trying to sell stock... what would you be telling potential investors about your potential market?
-
Once a company goes public, the founders inevitably lose control - that's what "going public" means. It's not about opening the doors to tour groups - it's about surrendering control in exchange for money. First-round investors don't just want profits - they want increasing profits, in fact increasing at a certain rate. That's how they intend to make money on their investment - by boosting the share price. They're not in it for the dividend checks. THis is a web company, not an electric utility. It's not a long-term holding.
Corporate America eventually arrives at the same end result regardless of the starting conditions. It's a mill that grinds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.
Do you watch The Dragons Den? Here in the UK its a program about 5 investors and entrepreneurs pitch their idea or business to them and when the investors see a profitable pitch they will invest. But what I get from them is that they want a is a good working relationship, get their money back as fast as possible, but they never want to run a business into the ground to make a quick buck. What good is it do them do get their profits and then run it into the ground? They want to get that % equity for as long as they can. They invest their money, expertise and resources and work with the entrepreneurs to build a successful sustainable business. So why would SS investors ruin a business? Because its done over at IS doesnt mean all investors work like that. Plus he is still majority stake holder so he calls the final shots. If he doesnt want his business to be run into the ground, it wont happen.
There are all kinds of investors and many do not set out to deliberately ruin a business.
Yes, Oringer is still the majority owner and he might stay directly involved for quite a while.
Various outcomes are possible, at least in the short term. My point is that SS is now on a whole new track - and I think the current outpouring of praise for Oringer, and confidence in SS, is just a bit over the top. It's often been said in politics: we vote for rich people because we think they're going to make us rich, too.
Of course I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
-
Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.
Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people´s businesses.
Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.
SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn´t.
Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?
Venture Capitalist's like to see a return on their investment and if they can grow to the point they no longer see future growth you can be sure they and Mr. Oringer will cash out before the company starts it's decline. The VC's seem to have placed key people in SS management to assure that they maximize their investment.
Now if you were trying to sell stock... what would you be telling potential investors about your potential market?
What VC's? It was an IPO. Oringer himself retains 56% of the business. End of.
-
Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.
Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people´s businesses.
Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.
SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn´t.
Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?
Venture Capitalist's like to see a return on their investment and if they can grow to the point they no longer see future growth you can be sure they and Mr. Oringer will cash out before the company starts it's decline. The VC's seem to have placed key people in SS management to assure that they maximize their investment.
Now if you were trying to sell stock... what would you be telling potential investors about your potential market?
What VC's? It was an IPO. Oringer himself retains 56% of the business. End of.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW1046893.htm (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW1046893.htm)
“It used to be better”
Current Shutterstock Employee – Reviewed Aug 2, 2011
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 Senior Management – The company is either a start up or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.
-
^^^ Too late mate. The VC's may have provided funding until the IPO. They won't be there afterwards. Their job is done, their money is made and will now be ploughed into new ventures. The clue's in the name.
-
Thank you! I will look into this with someone who is more computer literate than me. My humble website needs an overhaul anyway. Maybe we could include this.
I guess as an exclusive I really know nothing about the world out there, do I?
You can also go with something like Photoshelter which you just turn on and load images for an instant website. Because you're exclusive you could start by using it for prints or RM and build up traffic through SEO or social media. So if you decide to go indie at some point you can just flip on the RF licensing immediately and you'll already have traffic.
-
I have thought about Photoshelter but I don´t know how many potential customers would know them in Europe. I could probably customize my website through them as well.
Thank you all. There is a lot to think about and learn.
It is good to know there are well tested options.
-
There's also Photodeck which I believe is on your side of the pond.
http://www.photodeck.com (http://www.photodeck.com)
-
That looks great! Thank you very much. :)
-
^^^ Too late mate. The VC's may have provided funding until the IPO. They won't be there afterwards. Their job is done, their money is made and will now be ploughed into new ventures. The clue's in the name.
LOL, they will not be gone if they think there is still money to be had! There are a few key people who know what the long term plans are but everyone else will be kept in the dark! Most people believe what they want to believe and most often their beliefs have nothing to do with reality. Unpleasant facts are most often overlooked and swept out of the minds eye, so that we can keep our picture of the how we want life proceed.
-
I worked for a VC-funded technology startup that eventually went public. It was a small company and we saw the whole process from the inside. IPO, employee options, blackout periods, insider trades, misinformation, the dot-com boom, day traders, and eventually, total crash and burn. The whole cycle.
I won't bore everyone with stories but one thing I can say with conviction: these deals are always 100% structured to benefit the insiders, NOT the rank-and-file employees and NOT naive outsiders who buy the stock.
-
Jon Oringer at least said in one of his recent interviews that SS currently has 600 000 customers and he estimates that there are another 70 million out there.
Rebecca tells us that the market as ended, new contributors and new files will mean we inevtably lose sales and that there is no future. Also the traffic at gettyimages itself keeps going down. So they have no organic expansion, unless they buy other people´s businesses.
Like others have said "meeting expectations" is not growing.
SS sees a huge world market, Getty doesn´t.
Who do you think will have more growth in the next few years?
Really astute observation Jasmin. Sounds like Getty/IS has just thrown in the towel. Very defeatist attitude. Shutterstock, OTOH, is looking forward to more growth in their market and doing what is necessary to make that happen.
ETA: I am certainly not a fangirl of any one site. I have seen enough over the past several years to know that any one of them has the potential to screw contributors over in the right set of circumstances. For the moment, the fact that SS and DT are run by their original owners inspires the most confidence. Who knows what will have happened by this time next year?