Earnings > Referred Contributors > it shows the year. Not the month. I'd agree that we only get a general view of when they went active.

Ah, I see. It's on their profile. Thanks.

The goal of these changes is to bring a wider variety of new contributors and content to our site.

Can they just say it is about money?

Quote from: cthoman on February 04, 2013, 21:21

Those are fancy numbers and yet I earned more at my own site than I did at Shutterstock last month. You don't have to be the biggest to be successful. You just have to earn money for your contributors.

Maybe __ but what scale are we talking about and how many images do you have at each, etc? Is it a fair comparison?

The truth is that SS had about 150 employees in NYC a couple of years ago ... and now they have have about 250 ... and growing. I'd assume that those employees are actually required to deal with the  sheer volume of work that becomes an agency dealing with XXX million sales per year? Where would 'our' co-op source and locate all the skilled people necessary to do a similar job? Maybe we could just have a couple of people operating out of their bedrooms instead?

You are right. It is not apples to apples when it comes to image totals, but my point still stands. I'm not competing with Shutterstock, the giant company. I'm competing with MY earnings potential at Shutterstock or any other agency. And after a year of no growth in 2010 at SS and all the antics by IS and FT in the same year, I was a little wary of that potential being positive.

What defines Top Tier, Middle, etc., at least in the terms used here at MSG to rank the sites, "Top" doesn't always mean "best paying". It isn't really cannibalizing to work with the lower tier sites if they pay better per sale. Is it cannibalizing if I submit to GL (a low tier site) and make $3.60 per sale when I'm making less than that per sale at istock? I don't think so.

Matter of fact, you'll find that there are often far better deals out there than what the top tier sites offer. I'd even go so far as to say that in most cases, we'd all make a lot more money if we did "cannibalize" says from the top tier sites by getting more sales at some of the lower tier sites that pay better per sale.

So, I'll mark you down in the "pro-cannibalism" camp. 

Out of curiosity, if one was set up would you contribute to and support it?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but it really depends on the rules, terms, etc. I have no problem with supporting small start ups if I believe in them, but it has to be right. I'm pretty picky about the new sites I join now.

I wish I could find some motivated and willing people to do something like this with my direct sales website & affiliate program, because every link helps in this business.

Yeah, me too.

Hmm... it's weird. I'd say I'm a procrastinator and a poor negotiator, but I can't say those are true when it comes to freelancing. The list definitely sounds like a typical day of negotiating prices and filling your day with stuff which usually involves sitting at a computer and getting things done.

I deleted all my 2330 images there a year and a half ago. Does that count? 

Here's how it went for me...

Clipartof led the way again with 27% of earnings. My own site, MyStockVectors, dethroned Shutterstock, the reigning number 2, with 22%. Shutterstock slipped to third with 15%. It was followed by Dreamstime (8%), Can Stock (7%), GL Images (6%) and Toon Vectors (5%). Big Stock showed a little life this month at 3%. The rest were 1% or under.

This month came in in 7th place, so not too shabby a beginning to the year.

What a depressing theme - once companies become successful and dominant they ignore, or abuse, the people who create the content that made them big and successful.

I honestly don't really see what the big outrage is here. You could sort your search results by size before. This change really isn't all that different. Google isn't the one that is putting these large resolution files out there. Will there be abuses? Yes, of course. Does Google drive sales and bring paying customers in as well? Yes, they do.

I'm of the opinion that the positives outweigh the negatives here. And, the negatives are things that Google can't fix like sites posting images at resolutions they aren't supposed to or people stealing files from sites. Those two things will probably exist as long as the internet does.

I'm not sure why contributors keep barking up this tree. istockgetty is NOT going to change. They are in business to make money and they don't give a crap if they stomp all over the contributor's IP to get it. The only solution is for contributors to pick up their toys and go play somewhere else. If they still want to make money, that is.

Like Vlad said, I'm sure there are contributors making money. Otherwise, people like Sean would probably be jumping ship. That said, I agree with you. They aren't going to change.

Who in the top tier is giving you such a great deal that you can't get a better deal with the lower ranked sites?

P.S. My top two sites this month aren't ranked on the chart, so you never really know.

Yeah, making a website or blog should do the trick. Pop in some links or a banner. Can I ask why 123RF? It seems like you could promote some more profitable agencies or sell the files yourself.