Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 10:57

...
The freedom to pursue the self interest in a free market is the only mechanism that has ever provided a better life to the masses. Failure to understand this mechanism led only to disastrous experiments and widespread poverty.

...

If your own interest is to steal what created your neighbor, this statement may be debatable.
2007-08 financial collapse is a "good" example where greed didn't provide any better life to masses.
PS : I am not leftist.

No, it is not. You can be caught and thrown in jail. It is in your interest not to be thrown in jail. It is in your interest to live in a safe community. It is in your interest to pay taxes and support a police force in the community.

On the other hand, that 2007-08 collapse happened because of too much government intervention in the free market.
Yet another good and noble intention (affordable housing) which ended up with disastrous consequences.
The government intervention made mortgage lending virtually risk free, messing up the free market. The banks reacted to that incentive, the same way normal people reacted to abnormally cheap mortgages.

Let the market decide the lending and borrowing risks, and you will never end up in such messy situations. The supply and demand tend to miraculously agree with each other.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 12:34

You should never blame a failure on "greed".

Why not?  If someone makes a bad decision because they got greedy then the failure most certainly can be blamed on greed.  There are examples of this everywhere.  May as well call it what it is.

Both good decisions (when a company makes a successful move, like Adobe, probably) and bad decisions (as the one SSTK is blamed for) are driven by self interest (or "greed" if this is what you want to call it).  This is why you can very well take "greed" out of the equation, and look for the real reason behind SSTK shares decline.

It's the free market working as it should.

Tickstock is right.
SSTK stock is probably seen now, as bearing more risks. The reason might be a perceived failure to react to a stronger competition.
That "greed" nonsense has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 10, 2015, 15:47

^^ That's not always true.
People who make a point of buying fair trade may feel good about doing it, but they make the choice primarily out of a sense of fair play, "If I should get paid fairly for what I make/do/provide, so should those who make/do/provide for me."

+100.  Only greedy people think that everyone in the world is motivated by greed as they are.  Greed is wanting the most for yourself and f#@k everybody else.  Some people make decisions on what is best for their communities or society as a whole.  That is altruism and not greed.  Makes me sick when greedy selfish people justify it by saying everybody is the same as them.

Pursuing self interest is not the same thing as being selfish. This is a big fallacy.

A simple example is tipping. You tip even if you never plan to set foot again in that restaurant. You are not selfish (obviously) and it is not charity; you tip because you want to reward and encourage good service in the future. It is a social norm built around self interest.
It is your self interest to live in prosperous community (safer streets, etc), so you are ready pay a premium for it, without being selfish. The same logic applies beyond the community, at country level and beyond, obviously with less and less intensity.

Another fact is the gap between some noble, good initiatives, like the "fair" trade and the perverse economical results seen on the ground. The gap between "Fair trade" results and the economical reality is no different than the gap between the noble intentions the communism had (+ fighting those "greedy" capitalists), and the economical disaster seen, once trying to make those great ideals, reality.

And I'm not only talking about all that corruption around the fair trade labeling and about those who made fortune out of a noble initiative, meant to help the poor.

I'm talking about the effect of "subsidizing" only some farmers, who, after becoming richer through fair trade deals, are able to grow their production and undercut market prices (because of their "fair trade" additional margins). This only destroys the business of the other poorer farmers, who only grow for the "regular" free competition market, without being able to make it into the "fair trade" club.
This leads to less supply, strengthening the "fair trade" business owners position, who can raise prices again, after driving their competitors out of business.

Besides, those new fair trade business owners hire workers who are often working in conditions inferior to what was considered "unfair" when they were simple workers, on their own little farm.
Fair trade "subsidies" are no different than the regular governmental subsidies. Both have the same noble intentions and the same perverse effect in reality.

Isn't it ironic that "fair trade" leads to "greed" and to the poor becoming poorer?

People believing in such doomed to fail noble intentions consider themselves morally superior (isn't it also self interest?), etc, while those pointing out their fallacies are labeled as selfish, "greedy", etc.

Remember, it is not called "greed" when you pursue your own interest, it is only called "greed" when others do the same, as this Nobel prize laureate explains here: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 10:11

Quote from: gbalex on August 09, 2015, 10:04

Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.

Of course it played a large part!
All people in all societies pursue their own interest, seeking what is good for them, their families and their communities.
You do the same, every time you make an economical decision in your life, when you want an agency to pay you higher commissions, when you look for a good deal when you buy a lens, or when you want a cheaper car, etc.

Except that, when others do it, you call it "greed"!

Breaking News: there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary! The pursue of self interest is the catalyst of all progress; it unleashes innovation, creativity, hard work and ultimately leads to a better life for all people.

With reason this is healthy, however the balance has been lost in micro and became worse when shutterstock rolled out the IPO leaving the wallstreet crowd to suck the company dry. The vehicle was different with IStock, but the results were similar.

I quit keeping track in January of this year, however at that time the key players place in the company by Insight venture capitol, excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 which was the low stock price in January, that amounted to $1,144,929,800

It is clear that the last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern was/is driving stock prices up, and they are in this for the short term. They know the window to drive stock prices up is limited. That is why you are seeing key players move on to the next lucrative IPO.

Don't get me wrong, this discussion and the analysis are welcome. It helps all of us to make better decisions about who we choose to trust and make business with.

But this is nothing extraordinary.
The company I work for granted to ALL its employees stock options at $0 costs for the employees. It is only a more sophisticated reward system. Instead of doing it through bonuses, salary increases or other perks like other non-listed companies, they can also do it through stock options.

Nevertheless, if they paid themselves and their employees more than the company can afford, jeopardising the company's survival, you can call it mistake, error in judgement, foolishness, etc.

You should never blame a failure on "greed". But you can always blame a it on a mistake, on lack of vision, on stupidity etc.
"Greed" (only to use your word) is present in all of us. And who denies it is a hypocrite. Ultimately, it is what drives us all. It is what makes a company or an individual successful.

You are right, I did jump to a conclusion, your schpiel sounded exactly like Hongover's; who has stated that he is a new contributor. I failed to read your user name.

Yet you recently joined MSG and actively deride "old timers".

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 27, 2015, 17:48

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 27, 2015, 15:02

I make a full time go of it on micorstock and I also make a full time go of it with the big boys. It's actually very entertaining to hear little kids who think they know it all and take the piss out of us old timers at every chance they get and yet they are struggling to make it all work out. You are funny. Granted, if you had the skill you would most likely be doing the same thing. Most successful photographers that I know do as it's a no brainer. Nothing stopping you is there?

Ha, ha, I love my regular job and I have no intention to become a full time photographer. I know for sure that I will never be close to make what I normally make, from photography only.

What I find interesting is that, what I get from a weekend hobby seriously competes with what some "old timers" complain about, around here. Still, I would never brag that I have "the skills", since I know that there is always something new to learn, no matter how advanced you believe you are

Mark my words: those "funny little kids", as you condescendingly call us, will eat an ever bigger slice of your pie. And there is nothing you can do about it!

Maybe I recently joined MSG, maybe I recently changed my nickname, maybe I was, until recently, only an active anonymous reader.

I don't "deride" the "old timers". I learn from them.

But I don't see reasons for this"requiem", sung by a very loud, small "old timers" chorus, to be the leitmotif for the majority of the MSG topics.
Especially when contributors with a different perspective, (especially enthusiastic talented newcomers) are actively belittled with a condescending attitude.

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 06, 2015, 13:43

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on August 06, 2015, 12:23

You are so completely wrong about how the life cycle of an image in micro works.  Images don't gradually rise in searches over time. Top earning images peak very quickly then slide from there earning less each year.

If you keep on producing images, they will always be given the chance to appear on the "new" ranks.
Now, if your new images are competitive, they will move up on the "popular" (trendy) ranks.
Next, if your images are really exceptional or truly unique , they will climb the "relevant" ranks.

Each time an image will pop up on these different ranking systems, other images from your port will be offered as alternatives. This is how old images are given a second wind, allowing them to climb, once more, the popular and the relevant hierarchies, or to maintain their position.

This "viral" mechanism built in the search algorithm aims to keep the fresh, trendy and best photos in front of the customers.

So, the key is to keep on producing, indeed, but not just for the sake of increasing your port.
It is paramount to constantly produce high quality images. Each quality image you produce today, is a locomotive for your older images.

If you see your port fading away, you either have to start producing again, or you have to learn how to level up your game and deal with the new, tougher competition, you now have to face on your niche.

How do you know, you have only been at shutterstock a few short months?  Yet you lead people to believe that you know a great deal about how the shutterstock search engine functions.

Your theories are not born out of actual experience, and they have not been true for successful contributors who have been submitting at shutterstock far longer than you have.

See? Another assumption! And you know whose mother the assumption is.

How did you conclude that I'm with SS for only "a few short months"?
Only because I disagree with your "theory" and I don't sing in your in your requiem chorus, it doesn't mean I'm a "newbie". Lol!

Please!

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 05, 2015, 16:25

Quote from: gbalex on August 05, 2015, 16:16

Quote from: Hongover on August 05, 2015, 15:43

You've exposed me. I am a SS community leader and my mission is to recruit new contributors by the millions so that our overlord, SS can meet the $104 Million revenue target for the 3rd quarter of 2015.

Our shareholders have not been happy with our linear growth. They want to see exponential growth and in order to do that, we must keep our portfolio fresh and in demand. This will ensure our sustainability and consistency as the market leader and crush all with our steel heel boots, especially the maker of Flash, which has cause more security problems than people can count.

As a SS community leader, I'm going to share what type of photos will be in demand for the next year...adorable rodents. If you have a lot of those in your portfolio, get ready for a killing in 2016. You're welcome!

Re: "in order to do that, we must keep our portfolio fresh and in demand. This will ensure our sustainability and consistency as the market leader"

Words uttered by every fresh naive new contributor.

Please!

Words of an embittered "old school", unable to adapt to a different reality.

Please!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It must take a special type of denial, arrogance or salesmanship to convince yourself and others; that out of Over 50 Million Images. Your ports contains fresh new content while those who have been at this a long while, have port which contain only old school images.

It is as you put it, or maybe the agencies have a suicidal business plan, hiding their "good old" content from their customers, while forcing them to swallow only krap from "every fresh naive new contributor".

Please!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 03, 2015, 00:13

Quote from: Hongover on August 02, 2015, 23:26

What is decent money? $50/mo? $200/mo? $500/mo? $1000/mo? The last one is a huge challenge for anyone, but $500/mo is very attainable with the right portfolio.

Which is exactly why so many people have said if your expectations are to pay for your gear and have some pocket money, it's not too late, but if you want to quit your day job and support yourself, then yes, it is too late.

Depends on where you live. With U$ 1000/month I can travel endlessly in the countries I like the most.
If you live in US/Northern Europe/Australia/Japan micro is a complete waste of time now.

It provides me 20-50% more than a minimum wage in US. Not enough for a decent living, but it is a nice bonus by any standards. Especially since it only involves some weekend work.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

One thing has changed, recently. Their review process is much faster.

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:57

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:53

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 30, 2015, 10:48

Quote from: tickstock on July 30, 2015, 10:36

Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means.  It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.

Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission the pay their contributors is the lowest in the industry.

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!

How is that?  I get higher royalty rate and higher priced sales.  You want a competitor to lower their royalty rates and prices of images and you think that will be good for you?  You must have been jumping for joy when DPC was announced.

No. Believe it or not, I want you to make 30% more than you do today.

I want people like you to pull their exclusive collections from IS. This will make IS lose their customers to other agencies offering a better RPD (IS is paying me 25% less than SS and 35% less than FT)

Win for you, win for the rest of us!

I don't think I'd get 30% more, I'm pretty sure losing 30% is much more likely.  I also think in the coming year Adobe and Shutterstock will both lower prices and Shutterstock may lower subscription royalties as well to compete better with Adobe (who in turn can already lower their prices since they pay less for subs).

Of course, we will never know!
Nevertheless, you have an opinion, while I have facts based on those exclusive files (some of my best) I still keep with Getty.

Sorry I have no idea what that sentence means.  It's not false pride, some images will make more money at higher priced sites than on lower priced ones.

Definitely, but if these files only sell once every 10th blue moon, you end up getting less. Or as I calculated for myself, I will get 30% less. Not a good deal.

If only we could convince exclusives like you to stop enabling IS!
We have to make them understand that the commission they pay to their contributors is the lowest in the industry. Those $0.19 PP sales are a disgrace!

Giving away your exclusivity will be better for you AND for the rest of us!

Quote from: robhainer on July 29, 2015, 23:07

Quote from: tickstock on July 29, 2015, 19:08

So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique?  I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach.  The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.

Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.

But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.

Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty.  You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.

I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.

Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway). Or for 500px, as robhainer stated.