pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Unsustainable!  (Read 36244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: April 14, 2014, 14:19 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:58 by tickstock »


Ron

« Reply #76 on: April 14, 2014, 14:24 »
+1
I haven't said I wouldn't love a raise but in fact I would be quite happy if other agencies followed SS success

This is the problem.  Shutterstock's success has come from undercutting the market, even Offset which some people here are saying is supposed to be a jump up from Shutterstock is really aiming at undercutting the RM market.  When other companies follow SS's success we get things like Yayimages unlimited subs, fotolia's dollarphoto club, thinkstock, etc.. The worst thing for us is if there are more Shutterstock's out there.
SS wasnt undercutting the market as you said yourself the images they had were amateur and inferior images. Worthy of 20 cents. Shudderstok, the pro, siad himself he dumped his less quality images on micros, giving him an extra income. The amateurs were making a ton of money and the pros wanted in on that, and submitted high quality images to micros and the amateurs had to up their game to compete with that. You are blaming SS for ruining the market when in fact IS started with a free model, giving stock images away until Bruce monetised the model. IS was the first microstock site, not SS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStock#History
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 14:28 by Ron »

« Reply #77 on: April 14, 2014, 14:30 »
+2
SS wasnt undercutting the market as you said yourself the images they had were amateur and inferior images.

If I could set my prices and opt out of subs. I'd be a happy camper. Otherwise, I'm getting undercut. Not just at SS, but at most of the agencies.

« Reply #78 on: April 14, 2014, 14:35 »
0
I haven't said I wouldn't love a raise but in fact I would be quite happy if other agencies followed SS success
This is the problem.  Shutterstock's success has come from undercutting the market, even Offset which some people here are saying is supposed to be a jump up from Shutterstock is really aiming at undercutting the RM market not boosting the RF one.  When other companies follow SS's success we get things like Yayimages unlimited subs, fotolia's dollarphoto club, thinkstock, etc.. The worst thing for us is if there are more Shutterstock's out there.  'Disruptive' is the buzzword I keep seeing out of Shutterstock, what do you think that means?

if you have been following the sales reports here at MSG you know that the majority of the indies do from 30 to 50% from SS, some much more, do you really believe it is possible to just ditch them? who will pay the bills at the end of the month?

even Sean joined SS (with 2400 pictures already)

« Reply #79 on: April 14, 2014, 14:37 »
+3
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.

sorry but I don't really remember seeing you complaining about subscriptions before having serious drops in income

we are all well aware about subscriptions and also ODs/SODs/ELs, the last ones represent 42% of my income at SS

can you tell us which % of your income comes from SS?
He started submitting to SS when he got 20 cent an image. Now he gets ODDs SODs  ELs and is complaining about SS not raising prices and that their sub model is ruining the business.

Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.

You consistently fail to admit to yourself that the image quality in 2004 was very different than it is today.  You continue to ignore the facts when I posted images from shutterstocks top contributors as an example of image and content quality in 2004.

You also fail to take into account the number of downloads we were receiving for those very low commercial value images.  We uploaded images that were complete crap and they routinely received 5,000 to 10,000 or more downloads each.

Yes these days we receive OD's, EL's, & SOD's for much better quality images and still receive lower RPI for those vastly superior files that also cost more to produce. 

Inflation is a concept you completely ignore, and that economic denial is not typical of any business model.

Ron

« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2014, 14:38 »
-2
SS wasnt undercutting the market as you said yourself the images they had were amateur and inferior images.


If I could set my prices and opt out of subs. I'd be a happy camper. Otherwise, I'm getting undercut. Not just at SS, but at most of the agencies.


SS started as a sub site, 10 years ago, and everybody was laughing all the way to the bank, people actually became millionaire submitting to SS. But times have changed, and 10 years later, SS is blamed for ruining the market. Its a silly argument. SS introduced the sub model, but everyone, every amateur and pro were free to make a choice to submit to SS or not. I get it when people not submitting to micros are complaining about microstock, but I dont get it when people submitting to micros are complaining about low prices. Microstock is named micro stock because of micro prices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography


« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2014, 14:42 »
+3

You consistently fail to admit to yourself that the image quality in 2004 was very different than it is today.


You also fail to take into account the number of downloads we were receiving for those very low commercial value images.  We uploaded images that were complete crap and they routinely received 5,000 to 10,000 or more downloads each.

My image quality was certainly on a different planet. The trouble is that thousands of people have joined me on the spaceship that took me to this planet.

However, if you were getting 5,000+ sales routinely for crap images then the planet you were on must have been in an entirely different galaxy from mine (how many million sales have you got?).

Ron

« Reply #82 on: April 14, 2014, 14:43 »
0
That is right it is nothing new and yet many here continue to ignore the reality of the situation. To the point they ignore what "subscription pricing" has done to the entire industry.

sorry but I don't really remember seeing you complaining about subscriptions before having serious drops in income

we are all well aware about subscriptions and also ODs/SODs/ELs, the last ones represent 42% of my income at SS

can you tell us which % of your income comes from SS?
He started submitting to SS when he got 20 cent an image. Now he gets ODDs SODs  ELs and is complaining about SS not raising prices and that their sub model is ruining the business.

Why submit your images for 20 cent in the first place.

You consistently fail to admit to yourself that the image quality in 2004 was very different than it is today.  You continue to ignore the facts when I posted images from shutterstocks top contributors as an example of image and content quality in 2004.

You also fail to take into account the number of downloads we were receiving for those very low commercial value images.  We uploaded images that were complete crap and they routinely received 5,000 to 10,000 or more downloads each.

Yes these days we receive OD's, EL's, & SOD's for much better quality images and still receive lower RPI for those vastly superior files that also cost more to produce. 

Inflation is a concept you completely ignore, and that economic denial is not typical of any business model.
I am failing nothing, I have heard and read all arguments, and have commented and replied to them all. You ignore anything I say and when I dont agree with you, you start shouting in big bold red text. If you read back I just addressed your argument about inferior quality. I addressed all your points. You just choose to constantly repeat your snips and quotes without ever listening to someone else.


Ron

« Reply #83 on: April 14, 2014, 14:46 »
-1
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.

Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.

« Reply #84 on: April 14, 2014, 14:51 »
+3
I get it when people not submitting to micros are complaining about microstock, but I dont get it when people submitting to micros are complaining about low prices. Microstock is named micro stock because of micro prices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstock_photography


What's not to get? Microstock has a wide range of prices. My numbers have shown that I make a lot more from the pricing closer to the top and middle, than I do at the bottom. My earnings are basically being throttled by low prices.

« Reply #85 on: April 14, 2014, 15:54 »
-1
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.

Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.


Based on your response and bottom barrel level of hope I would guess that you are a slave in servitude and pick cotton for a living!

Snip http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l
A survey by Towers Watson Data Services found that employers were planning to bestow pay increases that will average 2.9% in 2014. Thats up a hair from the 2.8% average increases that employees got in both 2012 and 2013. Kiplinger expects the inflation rate to be 2% in 2014, so an employee who gets the average raise will more than keep up with rising prices.

There is a wide gap between the pay raises for top-rated workers and raises for employees with average or below-average ratings. Towers found that office stars received increases of 4.6% in 2013well above the 2.6% pay hike granted to workers rated average and way more than the 1.3% received by those rated below average.


What you fail to acknowledge is that shutterstock has cut our earnings by not raising prices to buyers nor royalties to contributors in over 8 years. And that has impacted pricing and business strategy at all of the agencies, because they are losing market share to shutterstocks long term price undercutting war. 

« Reply #86 on: April 14, 2014, 16:02 »
+1
are you happy with other agencies? have they given you any raise? is income there higher than before?

blaming SS for their failure doesn't seem reasonable in my opinion, as tickstock mentioned a few days ago there are even cheaper agencies
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 16:05 by luissantos84 »

Ron

« Reply #87 on: April 14, 2014, 16:07 »
-1
Again you insult me, get off your high horse and stop pretending you are better then others. Why do you keep up with us mortals, dont you have better things to do, as heir to a fortune 200 company? I make 65000 dollar per year in my day job, dont you worry about me slaving for anyone.

Shelma1

« Reply #88 on: April 14, 2014, 16:25 »
+2
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.

Inflation is not SS problem, in fact SS is the only agency that didnt cut earnings but did raise them. ALL other agencies have cut royalties and slashed prices, but thats fine with you, because they are not SS.


Based on your response and bottom barrel level of hope I would guess that you are a slave in servitude and pick cotton for a living!

Snip http://tinyurl.com/l6zou4l
A survey by Towers Watson Data Services found that employers were planning to bestow pay increases that will average 2.9% in 2014. Thats up a hair from the 2.8% average increases that employees got in both 2012 and 2013. Kiplinger expects the inflation rate to be 2% in 2014, so an employee who gets the average raise will more than keep up with rising prices.

There is a wide gap between the pay raises for top-rated workers and raises for employees with average or below-average ratings. Towers found that office stars received increases of 4.6% in 2013well above the 2.6% pay hike granted to workers rated average and way more than the 1.3% received by those rated below average.


What you fail to acknowledge is that shutterstock has cut our earnings by not raising prices to buyers nor royalties to contributors in over 8 years. And that has impacted pricing and business strategy at all of the agencies, because they are losing market share to shutterstocks long term price undercutting war.


I started with Shutterstock 2 years ago, and my earnings per download have more than doubled....that's a more than 100% raise over two years. Are you still getting 20 cents per download? If so, there's something terribly wrong.

Ron

« Reply #89 on: April 14, 2014, 16:29 »
-2
He'll never admit that his RPD went up, it doesnt fit his agenda.

« Reply #90 on: April 14, 2014, 16:31 »
-4
are you happy with other agencies? have they given you any raise? is income there higher than before?

blaming SS for their failure doesn't seem reasonable in my opinion, as tickstock mentioned a few days ago there are even cheaper agencies

You do not seem to understand that the top agencies dictate how much their competitors can charge buyers for images and specifically sub packages.  How do you expect the smaller agencies to be able to raise prices; if their largest competitors who have far greater market exposure are prepared to undercut their pricing long term?

What SS and IS do as far as pricing and the structure of their sub models; will dictate what the other sites are able to charge. Shutterstock has not raised pricing to buyers in over 8 years.  How do you expect the other sites to compete with them if they charge buyers more while they have less money to advertise their product?

Ron

« Reply #91 on: April 14, 2014, 16:39 »
+1
You dont seem to understand that there are still agencies out there charging a lot more then SS and IS and still do well. You need to get with them. I pointed them out a few comments ago. But you seem to ignore all we say. You fail to grasp the fact that you are free to remove your images from SS and put them where they make you more money.


« Reply #92 on: April 14, 2014, 16:50 »
+3
You dont seem to understand that there are still agencies out there charging a lot more then SS and IS and still do well. You need to get with them. I pointed them out a few comments ago. But you seem to ignore all we say. You fail to grasp the fact that you are free to remove your images from SS and put them where they make you more money.
This is actually dead on right. An example: Clipartof consistently outsells SS with $40 vectors and an average RPD of $7.5. They are winning because their SEO is amazing and the customer service is outstanding. You don't need to sell at sub prices if you are doing it very well. There are other ways to compete. It is up to the contributors to choose who to support and where to send their best product to first. However I will admit that sales at Clipartof would probably be much much higher if my fellow artists would stop supplying the sub sites.

« Reply #93 on: April 14, 2014, 16:57 »
+3
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:57 by tickstock »

« Reply #94 on: April 14, 2014, 17:11 »
+1
This is actually dead on right. An example: Clipartof consistently outsells SS with $40 vectors and an average RPD of $7.5. They are winning because their SEO is amazing and the customer service is outstanding. You don't need to sell at sub prices if you are doing it very well. There are other ways to compete. It is up to the contributors to choose who to support and where to send their best product to first. However I will admit that sales at Clipartof would probably be much much higher if my fellow artists would stop supplying the sub sites.

This is true, but it is hard to find enough places that are this way. Ideally, I'd love to have 5 Clipartofs. I think some of these larger places could become similar, but they are nowhere near making that transition.

Ron

« Reply #95 on: April 14, 2014, 17:11 »
-2
You dont seem to understand that there are still agencies out there charging a lot more then SS and IS and still do well. You need to get with them. I pointed them out a few comments ago. But you seem to ignore all we say. You fail to grasp the fact that you are free to remove your images from SS and put them where they make you more money.
My guess is a lot of people would rather see Shutterstock make some positive changes instead of just leaving.  From what Yuri has said he tried to talk to Shutterstock and get them to make these kinds of changes for a long time before he decided they weren't going to.  The forums are read by the different agencies so it makes sense to voice concerns here before leaving the site altogether.

He is anonymous, they dont even know who he is when he leaves. So thats a non argument.

Also, why would Shutterstock change their business model? Shutterstock operates in their segment, as does Getty. Wallmart is no Wegmans either

« Reply #96 on: April 14, 2014, 17:42 »
+2
Also, why would Shutterstock change their business model? Shutterstock operates in their segment, as does Getty. Wallmart is no Wegmans either

They do keep changing it and I make more when they add higher prices. They probably do too. All I'm asking for is to allow us to drop the lower stuff. It's not going to happen, but it seems like a reasonable request.

farbled

« Reply #97 on: April 14, 2014, 18:18 »
+2
Back to Uncle Pete's post, anyone have ideas on how to make things better for us as photographers and artists?

What do you picture your perfect agency to be like? Mine would be:

Sales volume like Shutterstock
Commissions like Offset or Stocksy
Curating like istock pre-2011-ish (seemed a big harder to get stuff in, that's a plus in my book)
Ease of use for contributors and buyers: no idea, they all have pluses and minuses
Forum: here of course, MSG!

shudderstok

« Reply #98 on: April 14, 2014, 19:29 »
0


even Sean joined SS (with 2400 pictures already)
[/quote]

sean did not drop IS based on his own decisions, he got kicked out, and has since had to scramble to make even a remote fraction of his previous income, and joining SS was an "experiment". unless i hear otherwise, i will just assume these are the facts.




« Reply #99 on: April 14, 2014, 20:10 »
+2
You want SS to compensate for inflation, LOL, which company or employer has ever done that. My previous employer Xerox told me tough luck when I complained about inflation and wanting a raise. You are just so bitter about SS... whatever.


Again you insult me, get off your high horse and stop pretending you are better then others. Why do you keep up with us mortals, dont you have better things to do, as heir to a fortune 200 company? I make 65000 dollar per year in my day job, dont you worry about me slaving for anyone.


I did not insult you or your job Ron, I did call you out on your ridiculous and false straw man assertions that companies do not compensate for inflation, nor do they give annual price of living increases each year.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's viewpoint, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty just wastes our time and serves to undermine honest rational conversation.

Your assertions are patently false.

Most U.S. Companies Planning Moderate Pay Raises for 2014 http://tinyurl.com/kndolqt

Snip
A new survey by global professional services company Towers Watson (NYSE, NASDAQ:TW) shows that most U.S. employers are planning to give workers a raise next year.

The survey of 910 U.S. companies conducted by Towers Watson Data Services found that only 4% of respondents are not planning to give salary increases next year


http://news.xerox.com/news/Average-2014-US-salary-increases-to-remain-at-3-percent-according-to-survey


Snip
Employers say they'll dole out raises averaging 3% in 2014, virtually matching annual increases in 2013 and 2012, according to a survey of more than 900 mid- to large-size companies. http://tinyurl.com/k5hqms2


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
46 Replies
10138 Views
Last post October 09, 2012, 19:05
by lisafx

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle