|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 64
1051
« on: May 22, 2013, 03:08 »
I don't like how SS seem to get blamed for low priced subs when they were raising the prices every year until other sites stopped them. Why would SS increase their $0.38 commission when several sites were paying $0.25? I think subs commissions were heading much higher but now were stuck until the sites have decided they can't get any more buyers and see how much they can raise prices. It would be hard for SS to raise prices first when they pay many of us the highest subs commission. There was a tiny commission raise from Thinkstock but $0.28 is still a lot less than $0.38.
SS has been steadily growing and gaining market share despite paying .38. They could have raised prices and continued the upward trend because submitters who are also buyers respected and trusted them. I would say that trust has been shaken recently based on their actions. Traffic is dropping at SS and rising at other ms sites, how much of this is because of those actions remains to be seen.
1052
« on: May 21, 2013, 14:33 »
I don't get how Yuri was feeling the pinch earning millions a year? He was doing great, unless he made it all up for that magazine article recently? This is just a way for him to make even more money. That's his choice, I'm sure we all have a price to sell out to Getty 
LOL, he is staffing 100 people. He said himself micros where not enough compensation for the overhead he has on the books. Its somewhere on page 1-3 of this thread.
In that article, Yuri was talking about how much he makes in profit, not turnover. I can't remember exactly what it was, I think he was saying several million. That's with all the overheads, he could cut them whenever he wanted but I don't think he's doing this just for the money. I think he wants to see how big he can grow the business and a big cash injection from Getty will help. I can't think of any other reason why he would want to stick all his eggs in one basket.
That was then this is now:
Hi Guys.
We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce.
Best Yuri
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/yuri-arcurs-is-is-exclusive/msg317436/#msg317436
It was only a couple of months ago. So what's changed? I'm guessing a big bag of money from Getty but of course that's just me being silly.
If you know you have a meeting with Getty what would you do? Telling the interviewer you have problems with overheads and diminishing profits or that you are making millions in profit?
I am always amazed at how many people buy the PR from both the micro sites and contributors who promote themselves. We should ask ourselves what are they trying to accomplish and why.
1054
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:40 »
Jon is a computer programmer first and a photographer based on the need to fill his new web application with content/images. He has a B.S., Computer Science 1997 and B.S. Mathematics 1997
he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.
seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?
kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t241347-looking-for-licenses-to-redistribute-stock-photog.html
1055
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:52 »
Offset is interesting, and has a more editorial feel than what is being discussed. I don't see it being high end or even stock photography primarily. Shutterstock is an intriguing company. It's the one agency I'm really on the fence about. I have argued myself onto both sides. The price per download is so little that it really does feel like an insult when you've been 'raised' in another agency. But, there are a lot of really good shooters out there who make great money on Shutterstock. They have good contributor relations, reaching out by phone and email. I also like what I know of Jon Oringer. But it's not like that matters, except that he is a photographer first and still runs the company. Right now my 500 or so images are all opted out. I'm reluctant to completely close my account at SS though until I've made a concrete decision about whether it's worth it or not. If I do continue to contribute to SS, it will probably be the only sub site I contribute to (other than iStock).
anyways, I heard from someone with more experience with SS. they have me rethinking the decision to stay on SS.
Am I correct that Shutterstock doesn't farm images out like istock does to programs and subsidiary sites? Or do they?
Jon is a computer programmer first and a photographer based on the need to fill his new web application with content/images. He has a B.S., Computer Science 1997 and B.S. Mathematics 1997 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129013864.htmlhttp://www.list-company.com/company-info/4028809a13dd74c80113ddb25c1c7e71/SurfSecret-LLC-Programming-Daily-Software-Florida-USA.shtml
1056
« on: May 20, 2013, 20:05 »
There is a difference between being trained by the sites and simply understanding that SS accepts and promotes images which frequently have color channels completely blown because the saturation has been ramped up to ghastly levels. Case in point look at the color channels in a few of the red rock images from monument valley. The red channels are completely blown.
There are plenty of us who do not buy into those who endorse or train newbies to shoot at extremely warm jpeg color temps touted at certain workshops, nor do we do we endorse doing it in post. But SS seems to accept and promote those type of images more than some sites do. Based on what they rejected and accepted, it is their own fault that they ended up with piles of that type of content.
1057
« on: May 20, 2013, 17:04 »
By the way, in case you hadn't heard, Oringer already has 'split the collection into different price points' by launching Offset.
It hasn't launched. It has been announced as an idea. And there has been no mention of splitting the existing collection. Actually almost no detail.
@Sean - have you looked at Maura McEvoy's work (which I think is excellent and which I like)? She isn't shooting unique venues etc.
You can see more photographers here https://twitter.com/offsetimageshttp://melee-media.com/projects/offsetpreview/"Melees objective was to strategize and produce a buzz generating brand launch. Internally, our goal was to get hundreds of New Yorks influencers hands-on with the content in a way that didnt feel forced or overtly commercial...." "Inspired by a recent Harvard Business Review article, Making Star Teams Out of Star Players, we were determined to put together a ridiculous team of the most talented specialists in New York no matter what the cost: Rockstar developers, projectionists that handle 3D mapping around the world, digital strategists and art directors that work on some of the biggest ad campaigns in the world, builders that have constructed major New York Fashion Week presentations, and finally a well-known curator and art consultant that has one of the sharpest eyes in the art world."
1058
« on: May 20, 2013, 14:35 »
^^^Didn't you notice that the rest of the big 4 cut commissions while SS kept theirs and added more ways to sell our images? Isn't there more reasons to leave istock, FT and DT than SS? Yuri has obviously been made an offer he can't refuse, I'm not sure Getty will do that for many more and for everyone they do, there will probably be exclusives going the other way.
5. Check out the R rates on BS, they did cut our rates. Last I checked BS was up 70% and SS was down 30%. Thanks for reminding me, that would be point 5.
1059
« on: May 20, 2013, 13:43 »
I remember someone saying that they would have loved to be the one that referred Yuri. If Yuris father referred Yuri, then he would have been making 4000*0.03*31=$3600 dollar per month (give or take). SS cut that income back in February. Thats a big hit to take, for anyone.
It might have pissed the Wackerhausen family off, to get hit with a +/- $40k annual pay cut. On top of the low royalties.
1. SS left all of us out of the Offset rollout. There are plenty of high end photographers on SS with ports that exceed the quality level they are expecting from their new Offset collection. 2. Besides the referral loss for his father I am sure Yuri had a big referral hit of his own. 3. Ports with a large number of images on front page searches have been taking 20% to 60% hits and I am certain Yuri had a huge number of images on the top row of first page searches. 4. SS has not given a raise out since 2008, we all need to justify production cost's for images that rise to the next level and SS is not supportive of those expenditures as they killed off it's long standing merit system with this new search in lieu of supporting images from Yuri's numerous copycats. SS brought this upon themselves and Yuri is not the only high end shooter they stand to lose if they continue to choose greed over those submitters who helped build SS.
1060
« on: May 17, 2013, 17:48 »
Lets focus on what we really know. His files have been removed from Shutterstock. Does he no longer trust Shutterstock as a good sales partner? Or does he believe they are going down after many successful years?
The little icon on istock is not as relevant IMO than the fact that he removed his files from the most successfully growing microstock site.
What does it mean for Shutterstock that the "most successful photographer of the decade" no longer has his portfolio with them?
Good questions, Yuri started at SS and has been there since at least 2005.
1061
« on: May 17, 2013, 16:22 »
A bug? He doesn't have any exclusive images, and there's still 32K on Dreamstime, for example. He does have 2830 exclusive audio files, though.
If so, that would ceeeeertainly explain the lifting of upload limits.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2700p1.html
It's too much of a coincidence for me that his entire port has disappeared from SS ... and now he's suddenly wearing a crown at IS.
It appears that IS may have relaxed their normal rules for him (assuming it is just a question of timing of portfolio removal from FT, DT, etc) or have possibly been overruled by a Getty manager.
I've heard about Getty managers making big decisions regarding Istock contributors in the recent past so it certainly could have happened again.
? Yet another SS bug or could be he is fully aware of what SS is up to these days and he feels IS will give his images better placement.
1063
« on: May 14, 2013, 16:02 »
Clearly you do not have a good understanding of the time, hard work or committed resources it takes to make a full time living from microstock. It is easy to swamp SS with snaps off your hard drive, but much harder to consistently produce images that make it to front page searches.
Actually quite wrong on all counts. I earn enough on ms to support a large family, but also maintain the 9 to 5 job "just in case." I'm consistently uploading images that sell. The SS search change affected my results... but previous top sellers are lower and previous underperformers are now doing better. My bottom line hasn't changed.
Lisa's points, however, are valid. SS has up until now rewarded our hard work on merit, while a few other agencies have taken steps to punish their top sellers. SS has done nothing to shake my trust in them... so far I don't see them taking the course of hostility toward their best performers. Until then, I'll support them against all ridiculous claims.
Looks like you have covered all points and your returns continue to be idyllic. 1. You work part time but you earn enough on ms to support a "large family" on your stock income 2. You are able to consistently upload images that sell 3. The SS search change affected your results... but previous top sellers are lower and previous underperformers are now doing better. 4. Your bottom line hasn't changed. 5. You fully discount that anyone @ SS could be experiencing a downturn. Unless of course it is their own fault as a result of being poor business people who utterly fail to maximize revenue and manage costs.
1064
« on: May 14, 2013, 15:51 »
Clearly you do not have a good understanding of the time, hard work or committed resources it takes to make a full time living from microstock. It is easy to swamp SS with snaps off your hard drive, but much harder to consistently produce images that make it to front page searches.
Actually quite wrong on all counts. I earn enough on ms to support a large family, but also maintain the 9 to 5 job "just in case." I'm consistently uploading images that sell. The SS search change affected my results... but previous top sellers are lower and previous underperformers are now doing better. My bottom line hasn't changed.
Lisa's points, however, are valid. SS has up until now rewarded our hard work on merit, while a few other agencies have taken steps to punish their top sellers. SS has done nothing to shake my trust in them... so far I don't see them taking the course of hostility toward their best performers. Until then, I'll support them against all ridiculous claims.
Exactly. Well said. SS have clearly been working hard to grow their own business and, by default, that of their contributors. Revenue in Q1 was up 36% over the same period in 2012.
Some people in this thread need to take some personal responsibility for the performance of their own portfolios and earnings. Especially people called 'gbalex', the self-appointed leader of the non-existent microstock union.
No it is you two who have unsuccessfully tried to portray me as a union organizer. Lets see if you two are still WhoooYahing in 6 months.
1065
« on: May 14, 2013, 14:19 »
I don't see it as SS' concern whether I can afford health care, retirement, etc. (And I certainly don't begrudge them offering those benefits to their employees... looks like it's a good company that takes care of its workers.)
It's my responsibility as a business person working as a supplier to SS to be maximizing my revenue and managing my costs to allow me to support myself and my family. SS shouldn't be worrying about my own personal situation when making its business decisions. My work should be judged (promoted and sold) based on its merit (attractiveness to customers). If I'm doing a good job, I'll have enough money for health care. If not, I better have another line of income for that.
Clearly you do not have a good understanding of the time, hard work or committed resources it takes to make a full time living from microstock. It is easy to swamp SS with snaps off your hard drive, but much harder to consistently produce images that make it to front page searches. You either do not have many images on front page searches or you have missed this nasty round of income cuts. Good companies do not take care of a select few while exploiting a much larger base of dedicated people who have committed untold manhours and resources to make them successful in the first place.
1066
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:38 »
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us. 
Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?
Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.
Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content.
Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent.
Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties.
Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.
Wow that is the best post I have ever seen anywhere! I'm sharing this with every graphic artist I know! thank you! I printed this post out and it is now on my studio wall. thank you again!
Your welcome and feel free to add the perks I left out. I wonder how many of us will be able to afford healthcare or retirement if these trends continue? http://www.linkedin.com/company/shutterstock/careersCareers at Shutterstock Other Fun Stuff: We know that the trick to keeping awesome people happy is by creating a fun, comfortable environment. This includes competitive pay for top talent, full medical benefits, plus: free drinks & snacks lunchtime yoga pizza & massage Fridays http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=5670540&trk=jobs_biz_pubWe offer excellent employee benefits including medical, dental, vision, retirement, discounted corporate gym memberships, tuition assistance plans, and pre-tax transit check programs. Join a fast-growing company that is already a leader in this dynamic industry! http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=5641058&trk=jobs_biz_pubIn addition to other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401K, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships, and most importantly, the opportunity to work with people who love their jobs.
1067
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:05 »
I am experiencing a "huge" drop on sales, worst in many many months. The OD and SOD are drying up completely. Not happy at all 
Yes its strange that all ODs, Els and single sales have just stopped. They must be going somewhere? but where. I can not believe buyers just overnight decide not to purchase any of these.
The people I know personally with the largest drops "had" a large percentage of their port on first page searches. My OD's & SOD's were zero up until two days ago when I received one only. Until then it seemed that I was completely unplugged from anything but sub downloads.
1068
« on: May 13, 2013, 20:38 »
They could have just allowed the exclusives to nominate a percentage of their portfolio for the lower price point. This would put the artist in control. The market would have sorted that pretty quickly once people get an idea for what sells best where.
Putting the agency or the artist 'in control' is actually the root cause of the problem that Istock has had. The customer and/or the market should really be 'in control'. By trying to be 'in control' of prices and especially sort-order placement, Istock have effectively lost control of their industry and now appear to be in free-fall.
The supposed 'value' that Istock placed on particular images, via their pricing architecture, bore absolutely no relation to how the customers (or indeed other agencies) valued those images. Now Istock have finally had to accept that.
SS understands the market and what they are really selling. IS, DT and FT simply don't __ and that's why they are being taken to the cleaners by SS. You may not like the implications of that but it is what's actually happening.
And yet you think it is a fine idea for SS to be serving buyers content based on what is best for the agency's bottom line and its stock holders bank accounts. Based on my experience as a buyer on IS, the content they served me was not in my best interest's and not what I needed for my projects. Consequently I spent more time trying to find what I needed and they lost me as a customer. If SS persists in serving us content based on what is best for their bottom line they will also experience buyers departing.
1069
« on: May 13, 2013, 19:03 »
Sounds more like multivariate testing to me, which is used in marketing for achieving a higher conversion rate and is done in live environments. Anyhoo, whatever testing they do, it can have negative results for some and positive results for others.
For those who have no idea what you two are talking about. The sites can serve buyers content via any number of scenarios. And they can serve images based on submitter royalty rate, number of downloads per image based on keyword used to download, image date, buyer profiling, etc.
1070
« on: May 13, 2013, 15:24 »
Hi All,
Just wanted to concur with everyone here my ShutterStock sales that have been solid ( within $100 a month for years, averaging about $1400-$1500 a month ) have taken a dramatic drop for the first time ever this month, sad to see the best of Micro following the pack. ShutterStock was the one micro agency that gave me hope in this model of stock, now ...they can talk about adjustments but this one was a doozie.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Thanks Jonathan! you just underlined it all.
Yes, he underlined that sales for many people are down. That settles it.
You are trying to hard; to not be invested in some way stockmarketer.
1071
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:48 »
Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)
If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.
It's good business, really, pure and simple.
Thats fine. I have no problems with that. However they do not need the suppliers to participate. Do they? I mean we are expendible. Right? since as you put it, " they do not provide"
A good number of us are buyers as well sellers. It has been demonstrated @ another site that we don't buy from stock companies that do not treat us or our fellows fairly. So yes companies quickly become expendable when they do NOT treat their suppliers fairly.
1072
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:28 »
Again, Shutterstock will do what proves to serve its customers' needs the best. (Yes, in turn this will serve shareholders as well, as a properly run business should.)
If your great-selling images are removed from front pages and customers buy less from Shutterstock, you can be sure Shutterstock will readjust and you'll be back in front. But if Shutterstock's adjustments results in MORE downloads, then the stuff they shifted in front of yours sold better than yours, and the best-selling stuff SHOULD be front and center, no matter who created it.
It's good business, really, pure and simple.
 Do you work for SS or own large quantities of stock, you seem to fear Union organizers lurking in every corner. Smart companies support merit and when they don't they quickly lose the very thing that made them a success.
1073
« on: May 13, 2013, 14:14 »
Gang, Shutterstock is a store, and we are its suppliers.
The needs of any store's customers change over time, and if the store wants to thrive, it is constantly watching how its customers shop, and it will give more shelf space / better shelf space to the stuff that is in demand AT THIS MOMENT, not what was selling well five years ago.
Should the store worry about whether its top suppliers from five years ago can afford to buy new equipment or even feed its workers' families? Come on, chaps, this is business. Let's all think like business people. No one owes us any special treatment for being best sellers "back in the day." If we're no longer supplying product their customers need right now, you can't expect them to give us special treatment.
Shutterstock is doing the best it can to serve its customers' needs, and that's good for US as much as it is good for THEM. It's in our interest that Shutterstock does well, don't you think?
You are talking to a few of the suppliers, who over a large number of years consistently supply large numbers of NEW improved content THAT SELLS and their numbers are down drastically. They are on the front page searches precisely because they can produce content that customers want. Take a good long look at what is showing up on the first page of new searches. I will leave the who, what and why to private discussions.
1074
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:14 »
Thanks a lot. Although this constant analyzing tend to be quite a costly affair for many of us.
Agreed......and maybe his title should be investor success?
Yes. shareholders my friend. Shareholders. Nothing else matters.
Yes new shareholders with small ports that do not generate much income seem to be the happiest about these new search changes. Never mind the many people who used to believe in SS. These are the same people who were instrumental in SS's success. I am talking about the real people who used their own funds to buy tens of thousands of camera & studio equipment, not to mention software, props ect. so that they could work hard year after year to provide SS with quality content. Over the years they worked hard to produce images and vectors that would reach the top50 so that they could feed their family. They made a good income because they worked hard for years and their families depend on that hard won income to eat and pay their mortgages/rent. Now SS turns their back on the very people who assured success for those working for SS. We made it possible for SS's employees to enjoy good incomes and perks such as gym memberships, massages, free breakfasts, free drinks and weekly pizza parties. Maybe they should come to breakfast, lunch and dinner at some of the houses they are robbing of shelter and food so that they can reduce cost of sale and bring up RPI sold.
1075
« on: May 09, 2013, 11:54 »
I m on Mac. It is not working for me. It is better than picniche toolbar for keywords. Any idea if the keywords are separated by comma or space (if it works) because Lightroom/lightburner only accept keywords with comma
You will have commas.
But if you have no comma (not in this specific case) you can simply create some automation (with automator or with some "rename" software) that will convert your "space" in "comma + space"
The only information in the clipboard is the previous item I copied. LOL like the part item # I need to fix my car. Also my stats show keywords that were used to buy certain images while the image stats show that those images in question have no sales. My sales are beyond crap this month and like many @shutterstock my personal information has not been indexed properly and is missing. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130228I wonder what else is not functioning that we can not see. Is it any wonder that some of us are having great sales while the rest are having below normal sales?
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
