Quote from: gbalex on June 28, 2015, 14:31

Quote from: photominer on June 28, 2015, 14:24

Quote from: ShadySue on June 28, 2015, 14:16

Quote from: photominer on June 28, 2015, 14:12

Quote from: gbalex on June 28, 2015, 12:19

.

You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?

They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.

Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.

Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.

I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.

Feel free. Although you'd have to look up under my old user id (farbled). Isn't that part of what a forum is about? Challenging opinions (or lack of them)?

I find your comment amusing considering you have shared no opinions, in regard to the topic of this thread.

Quote from: gbalex on June 28, 2015, 12:19

.

You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?

The thread topic and question was as follows, the op did not ask about other sites.

"Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions. Will anyone accept that? Explain why not or why would you?"

.

With all due respect you seem to be telling us all that you are working with both shutterstock and fotolia to recruit and train new contributors to fill areas of their collection that are lacking. You have a working relationship with both agencies that benefit the agencies bottom line not ours.

I think it is in our best interest to consider our own bottom lines, we need to protect our own assets.

Quote from: gbalex on June 25, 2015, 19:18

Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Snip

Now shifting to the cost side of the business, total operating expenses were up 35% excluding stock-based compensation with the primary driver being higher contributor royalties associated with growing revenue. Contributor royalties represent approximately 28% of our revenue relatively consistent over many quarters.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3154256-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-on-q1-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript

But that's obviously a mix of all media types and sales types. Some are above 28%, some below, and it averages to 28%.

I forget whether they've said that footage sub sales get 30% of the price paid or not, but I know they definitely said that about footage cart sales. I don't believe they'd state that and not do it. At least, I certainly hope not.

When they talk to contributors they tell us all of our media earns 30%.  When they talk to the investment community they report it at 28% with the exception of Offset which they say is roughly 40% and bigstock which they keep hidden.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-payout-$83-605-000-in-2014

Shutterstock�s report yesterday of paying out $83,605,000 in royalties in 2014 raises a few interesting questions. While it is a lot of money it is only 25% of $328 million.  Shutterstock has said they paid out �about 28%� of revenue collected in three of the four quarters in 2014 and �about 30%� in the Q3 2014.

It turns out that the $83,605,000 only includes Shutterstock sales. It does not include Bigstock, Offset or Weddam. If the $83 million is really 28% of revenue total Shutterstock sales would be about $298 million, not $328 million, or a $30 million difference. �About� can mean a lot, but I think it is safe to say that the combined revenue of Bigstock, Offset and Webdam was in the range of $30 million. It might even be more if the average payout was above 28% (remember that 30% quarter).

Based on everything they have been saying, I think they are earning very little from Webdam so about $30 million is split between BigStock and Offset. Any guesses as to which generates the most?

I also understand from Shutterstock PR that �royalty rates for Offset are higher than our norm, due to the unique content � somewhat above 40% on average.� Also, they say they haven�t broken out the royalty rates for Bigstock which indicates they might be lower than 28%.

Any thoughts?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 24, 2015, 15:57

"While the vast majority of our footage licensing business is in HD, we anticipate the 4K format will continue to gain traction and are continuing to make investments to market your content.
With that in mind, we are changing the price of a single 4K clip from $299 to $199. In addition, we will be launching 4K packs for the first time, which will allow customers who need multiple 4K clips to purchase in larger quantities in one transaction."


Lol, one of those things that makes no sense.  "Things are awesome and only going to grow, so, we're dropping prices!  Yeah!"  Silly.

I think gbalex nailed it on the head in another thread, both of those statements can be true if it's about taking market share.

Agree, they have openly admitted that they maintain low pricing to gain market share.

They completely ignore how this will affect the livelihoods of their contributors.

And all discussions here only deal with one question without ever evolving...

So you are not interested in placing images exclusively on SS and I would be, depending on what they offer. Very simple.

Evolving would include the willingness to look at the reality of the situation. At one time we all loved shutterstock, many of us have changed our opinions based on shutterstocks years long actions; which you are now asking me to ignore.

You have been a member of shutterstock for a blip in time and you are asking me to stuff my experience there, so that you can keep your blissful picture. If you want to evolve you might ask yourself why you expect this of me. And you might also ask yourself why you glorify sites that do not deserve it.

Experts in libel and slander assert that defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not. When Tyler gets sued by somebody for what the anonymous haters post here, we might see some changes made.

Can not claim slander if it is documented fact, a quick visit to the page below and a page search using the names Duck Swartz, Timothy E. Bixby and Jonathan Oringer gives exact quotes in transcript that each person presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

Funny how posting actual employee reviews that were copied in the order, after I signed on to the site to read them, can be construed as bashing. Employee perception is a simple reality check in regard to company moral and what is happening internally.

I simply gave examples of the reasons I would not consider going exclusive in the company's and employees own words. The main reason being the position management has taken and publicly stated in regard to their long term business road path.

if u had asked this question a year ago, before all the absurdities, i would be the biggest cheerleader to be exclusive with ss.
but now, with like other ppl even the longest time contributors all saying the drop in earning is getting worse and worse...
i would not want to risk putting my trust in ss.
they flip switch, limit dls once you make a big sales, have trusted managers quit,etc..
all reminding me of istock before they went bottoms-up.
no, not unless Oringer turns around and show some of his uprightness that made ss #1
ie before he sold shares ...
i would say pretty soon we would all be left without any good agency in microstock.
i would say, start looking for a dayjob or a new outlet to sell your wares

Here are a few shutterstock company reviews on glass door.

"Cons

Too many to list. Try asking one of more than 100 former employees that have left company in the past year"

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm

�Staff do not care for you. �
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

Good experiences drowning in dissatisfaction with the staff.

Cons

Silly customer - hah hah !!!

Advice to Management

Customer care and respect.


May 5, 2015

�Horrible Company. Look Elsewhere. �
Former Employee - Inside Sales Representative in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

They have snacks whenever you want...just like preschool.

Cons

Too many to list. Try asking one of more than 100 former employees that have left company in the past year...

Advice to Management

Keep that resume up to date.


Jun 8

�Great company/business, friendly people, lousy engineering environment �
Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
No opinion of CEO

Pros

Shutterstock in general knows how to get business and make money. All the people there are friendly and nice and enjoyable to be around. The work-life balance is fine. Their new Empire State Building office is kinda nifty. Assuming that the company's growth continues, new technology/leadership opportunities will also continue to open themselves to employees.

Cons

Engineers/programmers: DO NOT work at Shutterstock to exercise your skills with modern web or backend development. DO NOT work at Shutterstock to learn modern web or backend development skills. You won't accomplish either. If you have a favorite framework at any level of the application stack, odds are good that its use is explicitly forbidden.

Apr 2, 2015

�Horrible management �
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee

I worked at Shutterstock
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

good co-workers, 15 min. massage, Espresso Machine

Cons

Blood * management firing people who started to work before them. Booz in the office.

Advice to Management

Hope they will move on to the next company sooner : your next victim.


Jan 24, 2015

�Poor leadership. �
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Neutral Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Pros

Very nice, creative and ambitious people (especially below management), perks including food, tech happy hours and meetups, great office with lots of light.

Cons

Changing rapidly, lost the good leadership they had, extremely impatient culture, disorganized, too many opinions and stakeholders on every new project.

Advice to Management

Promote more from within, hire strong agreeable people who know how to manage and lead. Stop with the fire drills and remember your people have value to add. Restructuring product teams in a vacuum is leaving out some of the best talent.


Mar 9, 2015

�Opinion to Management �
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Pros

Free lunches daily to save money on expensive midtown prices

Cons

not great with communication to employees, and if you voiced you opinion about something it would be looked at as an issue then you will be the outsider starting problems. Then they will find problems with you and get rid of you with some sort of political way to ensure you do not come back at them.

Advice to Management

Truly allow employees to voice their opinion without taking it personal. The company success is because of the people who enjoy working with clients and providing the best service to them.

May 16, 2015

�Growing pains �
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Positive Outlook
Approves of CEO

Pros

Good perks and benefits. Opportunities to cross over to other teams and really learn how each team functions.

Cons

Leadership uneven. Feedback not always well taken even when obviously needed. Management and operations not expanding and functioning at the level needed for such rapid growth.

Advice to Management

See above.


�Enthusiastic Tech Department but Serious Growing Pains �
Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Pros

I worked in the Tech department so I can only speak to that part of the company. Overall, people are really friendly and excited to work here. The engineers participate in quarterly Code Rages and one annual Hackathon. Remote employees are regularly flown out for these events. The office is beautiful and has lots of natural light. There are lots of little rooms around the office to escape to, like� Show More

Cons

The biggest con is the lack of career development. When you come into a role in the tech department, it's very difficult to evolve into any role other than what you were hired for without a lot of advocacy from the right people. There's just no process for things like team rotations and it's easy to come into a role and just stay there for years. The review and bonus� Show More

Advice to Management

Just because an employee is salaried doesn't mean you can force them to work more than 40 hours per week. Don't treat your tech staff like they should feel privileged working for you... remember that in this competitive industry, if you aren't taking care of your tech people, they can easily go elsewhere. Hire execs that actually have executive experience at companies that reflect the kind of company you want to be. Better yet, hire execs that actually like people and have a sense of humor!

Jun 2, 2015

�infrastructure engineer �
Current Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I have been working at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook

Pros

very generous company to work for, interesting scaling issues, lots of problems to solve

Cons

leadership issues, too many programming languages, lack of ownership, mentality to replace tech rather than to fix it

Advice to Management

listen to your employees, don't just brush them off

 �It used to be better �
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee

I have been working at Shutterstock

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 Management

The company is either a startup or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.


Jan 15, 2015

�Great benefits, good salary, but.... �
Current Employee - Sales in New York, NY

I have been working at Shutterstock full-time
Doesn't Recommend
Positive Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Pros

Shutterstock pays well. In my case they didn't pay what they had promised in the recruiting process. The benefits are really nice, you get stock options, ESPP, a generous travel policy, fitness budget, drinks, etc. Shutterstock products are great, very easy to sell, but sales has to sell a lot. Clients like Shutterstock a lot. The processes work well, very smart and talented people in the company, but also really weird characters, especially out of the employees that started in the early days of Shutterstock. New staff is usually better educated and more experienced except a few strange hires. Very nice offices and locations around the world.

Cons

A big issue is that Shutterstock still employs people from the old days of Shutterstock who haven't seen a lot in the business world. Some of them don't have great education compared to other employees. Nevertheless, they have a lot influence and want to keep their power. Politics is also a big problem in my opinion. Some control freaks in the company and some people who think that they are better than the rest, especially in the lower and middle management. Some people are top performers, other people just talk a lot. In general the company is very performance driven. It's all about figures and revenues, maybe due to the NYSE listing. When I started at Shutterstock it was all about hiring. Today I hear more and more stories about firing people. Usually not a lot communication why. Sometimes also questionable firing decisions.

Advice to Management

It's not only about disrupting an industry, it's also about disrupting old structures internally and creating a great culture (besides things you can pay for). I miss the balance. Politics are an issue I believe. Make sure that people find a home at Shutterstock, don't give them the feeling that they can and will be fired very quickly, if something doesn't work out. Rather find solutions. Think long term - sales and revenue is not everything.

SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).

Quote from: PZF on June 19, 2015, 09:05

And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........

Some sites pay more for rejections, the reasoning being it takes longer to inspect an image thoroughly to determine that it needs to be rejected.

The sites never hesitate to communicate with us here and on their own sites if they want something from us.

Before IS exclusives started defecting we never heard from Shutterstock on MSG and they have been non responsive on their own boards for many years. From a business stand point, it made good sense to communicate with potential exclusive defectors who visit MSG; because many of them have large ports filled with images that made it through IS's formerly tough reviews. The potential is there to also skip review expenses for those ports.  Those initially lower royalty ports, also make SS more money.

I recall more than a few threads on SS proper asking why they communicated with participants here and refused to communicate with us on their own site. Strangely enough we never got so much as a response from shutterstock on the matter of their lack of response to our needs or their blatant lack of communication in general.

Scott was smart enough to realize the financial benefit of communicating with potential new contributors on MSG , however communication seems to be non existent since his departure.