|
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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 64
276
« on: February 11, 2015, 11:11 »
I joined Shutterstock March 2012 and they had 23.000.000 images. 23 million !
Shutterstock was founded in 2003, it took them 9 years to get 23 million images. Its 2015, and now they have 48.000.000 images !! They more than doubled the library in exactly 3 years.
At their current rate, they will be reaching 100,000,000 images in 2.5 years, around July 2017.
Seriously W.T.F.
When I joined, I think they had 350,000 we thought that was huge at the time. Jon was the reviewer.LOL
We tend to forget that most of the new images are really "old images" uploaded from the IS migration. Bruce found iStockphoto in 2000 and it took the IS exclusives who are defecting up to 15 years to build up those ports.
277
« on: February 11, 2015, 10:20 »
Question for you and Snow. Here's your opportunity to shine.
1) What is the cause of the problems both of you say are causing lower sales and income.
2) What is your solution.
I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess! You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.
Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.
Maybe Snow would like to entertain you and your passive aggressive games pete. I have come to realize over time that the "questions with no simple answers" that you frequently put forth are largely conscious one-upmanship banter. I am not interested in wandering down one of your strategic rabbit holes, so that you can lead the subject wildly off track and attack my viewpoints. I simply agreed with Snow viewpoint using a +1, that many of us who have been contributing for years have equal or superior equipment to those who are new and that if you have old equipment you should speak for yourself. I will leave it at that.
278
« on: February 10, 2015, 23:14 »
I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess! You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.
Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.
279
« on: February 10, 2015, 11:38 »
It's the competition and the number of photos. I didn't write that it was all about gear. Read it again please.
There are 40 million new images, which by the way, are taken on newer cameras, better equipment and with better setups. You can try to discount that fact but it's real. I didn't say anyone had to use bigger equipment or have a studio... just that our competition does.
You drive your VW Jetta in a competition and someone else has an Audi Quatro. Tell me who has the advantage?
Oh so an experienced contributor has ancient gear then? We don't upgrade?
New contributors either found the secret formula or have access to high tech gear we don't know about yet?
With all due respect but I think "speak for yourself" is the more appropriate thing for me to say to you then.
+1
280
« on: February 09, 2015, 18:54 »
Yuri could have easily done this with his platform and the sites knew it. I think this is one of the reasons he got the deal he did.
I would be in if we collaborated to build a site of equal caliber.
You may have misunderstood me, I did not mean in conjunction with this site and I am not at all surprised that leaf is not interested. I am talking strictly about Yuris sales platform http://peopleimages.com/The sites knew that he could have turned his site into a cooperative site that included the ports of hundreds of micros top contributors.
281
« on: February 07, 2015, 12:35 »
Lets also ruin the video market by exaggerating how much we make and teaching new contributors how to produce or copy our work.
282
« on: February 07, 2015, 12:31 »
283
« on: February 07, 2015, 01:04 »
Buyers determine the value of an image. It is a HCV image when many buyers vote by purchase.
They will never see or buy an image if it is buried on page 300 in a search, where buyers will never find it.
284
« on: February 06, 2015, 15:40 »
If "LCV" shots are making money they can't be LCV can they? Customers will buy what they want to buy not what we think they should buy 
If that was actually the case, shutterstock would not have needed to completely kill off our best selling images so that they could reduce their "Cost Of Sales". Buyers kept those images there because they chose them over new content that we all added. Shutterstock worked in the past for me because it was merit driven. My good images rose to the top because customers wanted and needed them and the others faded away because they deserved to fade away.
285
« on: February 05, 2015, 16:26 »
Not sure what is going on, but sales have been abysmal for over a week now.
Let me rephrase: Not sure what is going on, but MY sales have been abysmal for over a week now.
6 subs today. Thats abysmal.
I don't understand why someone who is stating their OWN info get voted down. I also don't understand why Gbalex and Mantis make very similar posts and Gbalex gets downvoted and Mantis gets so many + his post is in a box. Nothing against Mantis. I +1 both him and Gbalex cuz they basically said the same thing about flood of new lousy images burying good work. And +1 Ron too cuz this is a thread about our sales and he posted his sales experience.
Some people around here use the +/- system like spoiled kids instead of adults and professionals.
The same young men vote down every post I make, this has been going on for ages and I know who casts them. The contents of my posts are of no consequence to them, they must hope that their down votes will gain momentum.
Us girls can't vote you down? Sounds like you have some kind of persecution problem.
Quite the opposite, I speak my mind and leave it to you to take my inventory.
286
« on: February 05, 2015, 14:48 »
Not sure what is going on, but sales have been abysmal for over a week now.
Let me rephrase: Not sure what is going on, but MY sales have been abysmal for over a week now.
6 subs today. Thats abysmal.
I don't understand why someone who is stating their OWN info get voted down. I also don't understand why Gbalex and Mantis make very similar posts and Gbalex gets downvoted and Mantis gets so many + his post is in a box. Nothing against Mantis. I +1 both him and Gbalex cuz they basically said the same thing about flood of new lousy images burying good work. And +1 Ron too cuz this is a thread about our sales and he posted his sales experience.
Some people around here use the +/- system like spoiled kids instead of adults and professionals.
The same young men vote down every post I make, this has been going on for ages and I know who casts them. The contents of my posts are of no consequence to them, they must hope that their down votes will gain momentum.
287
« on: February 05, 2015, 11:47 »
Well my month improved slightly in earnings, due to a few late Els and a rather large SOD, so I ended about $100 down on last January, which was not so harsh as I thought it was going to be.
However, my downloads were down 25% on January 2014, despite increasing my portfolio by approx 15% over the last year.
Maybe this could have something to do with it?
'408,315 new stock images added this week'
That's an insane number
...and it's pointless too. Just type some basic keyword combo and arrange by date, it's almost all very amateurish junk, awkward shots, inept, unattractive models, etc, that never-ever-never gonna be downloaded. I don't know why people bother, also why SS bothers to let them thru.
The good news is that those simply won't bother your downloads, if you do somewhat more pro stuff. (yes there is definitely pro stuff too among that 400 000, just extremely small percentage. I wouldn't be surprised that if we cut the numbers down to stuff that actually makes a difference because it sells, that weekly upload number for that wouldn't even hit 15 000. Still not a diminutive number tho.
If the higher quality images never see the light of day in the search, buyers will never see or have access to those images.
Shutterstock makes more money on the new LCV images and that is why they accept them and also recruit the new photographers who produce them. Have you noticed how many new contributors are showing up here lately?
Search is so important to the customer value proposition. Even if many imags are substandard derrivatives of higher quality images buyers have to sift through them. When search favors some whacked logic where good selling content is buried it really doesnt matter what quality one shoots.
All of the junk within that 400k uploads a week will simply shut down microstock as a reliable, MEANINGFUL source of revenue. Its really a no win for everyone. If they favor older successful content then new GOOD content gets buried, like the SS of today. Or the opposite where good successful content gets buried and new content becomes the king you better be supplying 10x more than the next guy to get some of those diluted sales. In my opinion, no matter what, a rate of 400k images added per week is a killer for everyone who takes ms seriously.
Agreed, it will kill us all in the end. Do they care no, Jon is raking it in and does not care about the wreckage he is leaving in his wake.
288
« on: February 05, 2015, 10:06 »
Well my month improved slightly in earnings, due to a few late Els and a rather large SOD, so I ended about $100 down on last January, which was not so harsh as I thought it was going to be.
However, my downloads were down 25% on January 2014, despite increasing my portfolio by approx 15% over the last year.
Maybe this could have something to do with it?
'408,315 new stock images added this week'
That's an insane number
...and it's pointless too. Just type some basic keyword combo and arrange by date, it's almost all very amateurish junk, awkward shots, inept, unattractive models, etc, that never-ever-never gonna be downloaded. I don't know why people bother, also why SS bothers to let them thru.
The good news is that those simply won't bother your downloads, if you do somewhat more pro stuff. (yes there is definitely pro stuff too among that 400 000, just extremely small percentage. I wouldn't be surprised that if we cut the numbers down to stuff that actually makes a difference because it sells, that weekly upload number for that wouldn't even hit 15 000. Still not a diminutive number tho.
If the higher quality images never see the light of day in the search, buyers will never see or have access to those images. Shutterstock makes more money on the new LCV images and that is why they accept them and also recruit the new photographers who produce them. Have you noticed how many new contributors are showing up here lately?
289
« on: February 02, 2015, 13:44 »
Fotolia 0%
Same for me
And me!
Did you all get booted from Fotolia?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-still-at-it-they-closed-my-account/
I did. But they beat me to it. I had planned to get out of their crummy agency once i got back from a road trip i was on but in the middle of that trip "the chad" beat me to it.
I can not say that I blame you for wanting to drop them, sorry you did not beat them to it. Based on their not so honorable actions over time, I cringe when I see them beat out earnings on sites which treat their contributors better.
290
« on: February 01, 2015, 23:44 »
291
« on: February 01, 2015, 03:03 »
No you are not alone, my sales on FT, 123RF and DT have been exceeding those on shutterstock for some time now. I think the search has been adjusted to heavily favor content that reduces shutterstock's "Cost Of Sales".
292
« on: January 25, 2015, 16:10 »
Just my opinion, but I believe they got out of SS for financial reasons alone. Look at where the stock price is now as compared to where it was and what Insight Venture paid for it initially. Also look at the environment SS is presently working in ... Adobe's purchase of FT, lower subscription prices at other sites, the DT and Getty/iS deals with Google, etc. As I recall, the initial stock price (for insiders, not us) was somewhere in the $15-$17 range. It rose to well over $100, then settled back in the $70 range. Recently it has taken a tumble down to the mid $50's. Likely Insight took a look at where they are now and did an analysis on where they felt the business/stock price would go in the near future. Their conclusion was (in my opinion only remember) the stock was not likely to appreciate much over their event horizon so they went ahead and bailed out, collecting a pretty decent return over their initial investment.
As to Hellman & Friedman, I think the term that better describes them, among others, is Vulture Capitalists. I don't believe Insight Venture falls into this group. They haven't done anything, that we are aware of, that any prudent financial capital firm would not have done.
I completely agree with you on the "Institutional Investment" side. The last transaction is a case in point and I think it is the main reason they no longer hold stock. Sold Out Positions as of 12/31/2014 Company Class Value of Shares ($1,000s) ▼ Change in Value ($1,000s) Change (%) Shares Held SHUTTERSTOCK INC COM -74,341 Sold Out 0 http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/insight-holdings-group-llc-651789#ixzz3PrvxOB5DConversely as "Inside Investors" they continue to grant themselves large portions of stock at a cost of $0.00 and then dispose of those shares when they feel they will reap the best returns. I don't see those large and lucrative stock acquisitions, which they grant themselves at a cost to Insight Venture Partners of $.0.00, stopping anytime soon. Company Relation Last Date ▲ Tran OwnerType Shares Traded Last Price Shares Held
SHUTTERSTOCK, INC. Beneficial Owner (10%) 5/21/2013 Acquisition (Non Open Market) direct 170,074 0 170,074
SHUTTERSTOCK, INC. Beneficial Owner (10%) 2/27/2014 Acquisition (Non Open Market) direct 174,421 0 174,421
SHUTTERSTOCK, INC. Beneficial Owner (10%) 6/12/2014 Acquisition (Non Open Market) direct 127,285 0 127,285
SHUTTERSTOCK, INC. Beneficial Owner (10%) 8/14/2014 Acquisition (Non Open Market) direct 222,135 0 222,135
SHUTTERSTOCK, INC. Beneficial Owner (10%) 11/13/2014 Acquisition (Non Open Market) direct 168,147 0 168,147http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/insight-venture-partners-v-l-p-673717
293
« on: January 24, 2015, 14:22 »
http://www.insightpartners.com/about/
They are venture capitalists. Remember the Getty deal where the venture capitalists wanted their $500M and Getty went into deep debt to do it? This is the same thing. These guys want their money. But that what VC is all about so I don't see anything earth shattering about this. The ONLY disappointment to come is that lots of people are getting rich off of our content. Only thing we can do is quit, accept it, re-strategize our own businesses, buy SS stock, or complain. I do complain because venting makes me feel better.
But I am also looking at these kinds of posts Gablax makes and it just motivates me to rethink my business, which I am doing, and executing on a new gameplay (which I am also doing).
While it's nice to think that agencies who get richer and richer would share in that success with their contributors, it aint going to happen. I need to do that for me. The company I work for is VERY profitable and we still have an initiative to go after our suppliers and claw back a couple of percent from them even in the face of success. Why? Because today's profit is never enough when you have shareholders no matter how much that profit is.
Mantis I think very much like you do, I prefer to make choices based on facts. Fact are facts and have nothing to do with sensationalism or major dramatic events. The information I posted was regarding large scale "Institutional Investment" by the Insight Venture group who was instrumental in launching the SSTK IPO. If you are not interested feel free to read threads that "are" your cup of tea. Re "Or is this a major event we need to take notice of for some reason?" Little by little facts paint full pictures and I like to know just where I stand when it comes to doing business with other entities. If you are not interested and do not want to investigate, feel free to ignore the thread. Just as I frequently ignore the threads here that I have absolutely no interest in reading or participating in.
294
« on: January 24, 2015, 09:49 »
So for us regular Joes what are we supposed to care about this.
I posted this for those here who own SSTK stock. Quite a few of my friends hold SSTK stock and they appreciate the information.
295
« on: January 23, 2015, 19:25 »
Okay here is a fair question, why would anyone prefer to be oblivious to SSTK options bought or sold by important stake holders in a company you choose to do business with?
I like to make informed decisions regarding those I do business with, especially if I hold their stock!
296
« on: January 23, 2015, 17:32 »
It means that INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP was required to file a SEC SCHEDULE 13G/A Amendment declaring that they ceased to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the class of SSTk securities on Institutional Investment side of SSTK stock holdings; INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP includes the following Institutional entities: Insight Venture Partners V, L.P. Delaware Insight Venture Partners V Coinvestment Fund, L.P. Delaware Insight Venture Partners (Cayman) V, L.P. Cayman Islands Insight Venture Partners V (Employee Co-Investors), L.P. Delaware Insight Venture Associates V, L.L.C. Delaware Insight Holdings Group, LLC Delaware They still own SSTK stock as Inside Investors, however they have also been liquidating those holdings. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/insight-venture-partners-v-l-p-673717
297
« on: January 23, 2015, 14:38 »
Owner Name Date Shared Held Change (Shares) Change (%) Value (in 1,000s) INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC 12/31/2014 0 (1,289,748) Sold Out Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/institutional-holdings/sold-out#ixzz3Pfsl1RKaStatement of acquisition of beneficial ownership SEC SCHEDULE 13G/A Amendment Item 5: Ownership of Five Percent or Less of a Class: If this statement is being filed to report the fact that as of the date hereof the reporting person has ceased to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the class of securities, check the following: ☒ Form SC 13G - Statement of acquisition of beneficial ownership by individuals [amend] SEC Accession No. 0000899140-15-000092 Filing Date 2015-01-20 Accepted 2015-01-20 17:01:41 Documents 1 Filing Date Changed 2015-01-20 Group Members INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLCINSIGHT VENTUR PARTNERS (CAYMAN) V, L.P.INSIGHT VENTURE ASSOCIATES V, L.L.C.INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V COINVESTMENT FUND, L.P.INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNRS V (EMPLOYEE CO-INVESTORS), L.P. c) Citizenship Insight Venture Partners V, L.P. Delaware Insight Venture Partners V Coinvestment Fund, L.P. Delaware Insight Venture Partners (Cayman) V, L.P. Cayman Islands Insight Venture Partners V (Employee Co-Investors), L.P. Delaware Insight Venture Associates V, L.L.C. Delaware Insight Holdings Group, LLC Delaware http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000089914015000092/0000899140-15-000092-index.htm
298
« on: January 21, 2015, 14:04 »
@Jo Ann - A wasteland for 10 years? In those 10 years it has bought me a house in the UK, lock, stock and barrel, at the cost of a fairly modest effort. It doesn't look like a wasteland to me.
I should have elaborated. I've made a fair bit of money from various agencies (especially while exclusive at iStock) in that time, and I should probably have stated that. There was a lot of good - and I have learned a lot along the way via the agencies plus my investment of time and energy.
What I was trying to convey is what I see of lost opportunities, broken promises, and promising businesses dismantled or run into the ground. iStock is the biggest example of a business that was very successful and completely sustainable but has been crippled by Getty and its private equity owners. There's dreamstime and their endless complexity leading to being a perpetual #4; CanStock that used to pay substantial royalties and was a real innovator in site features, but which has never managed to sell; Fotolia whcich was a real innovator in internationalization and which has become a leader in scummy business practices. I could go on down the list, but I think you get the point.
Then there's SS, a success story in so many ways, but at what long term cost overall to the business we're all in? The handling of BigStock subscriptions and SS's ever rising share for me (and many others, I think) of the monthly income both worry me.
I guess the wasteland is largely the relationships between contributors and the agencies, not the money we've made along the way.
agree.
stock photography owners are like the mining (and brazilian clear cut forest to deserts) sorts. they do not care what they leave behind, they just rape the land .
the wasteland is the scourge of all mankind really. as far as i know, i have worked for yupee super idea people who were in for getting rich , rape the forest until they become deserts,etc and it is no difference with istock yesterday and ss today.
they all got to be millionaires off our backs and we got comfy too slaving for them while they paid for our mortgages. but many are no longer millionaires today. they rose so high and crash with the stock market .
unlike our older pre-yuppy business fathers who value slow steady lasting growth and keep their workers happy with them. many are still in business with their great grand children and faithful employees intact.
we just went in business with the wrong kind , that's all. .
Perfect analogy of the microstock business model!
299
« on: January 21, 2015, 10:16 »
I really don't recall that, as far as I remember the TS rate has been the same ever since I joined.
* Correction * I see that they increased the rate from 25 to 28c in Jan 2011, a year after the programme started, not sure you can claim credit for that, though.
No, I wouldn't expect you remember the facts let alone to thank or even acknowledge the steadfast position of your fellow contributors that secured your royalty increase. Why would you?
For several years you have quite deliberately undermined your fellow contributor ... as you are doing yet again with DT ... because apparently, to quote yourself, you think you might get a beer out of it. Well done you.
Hope you enjoy that beer and can live with how you sold out so cheaply, once again, to the detriment of your fellow contributor. Like I said, a leopard really doesn't change it's spots. Once a cheap sell-out ... always a cheap sell-out.
Total nonsense - and as I said once before, it's a bit thick to be lectured by someone who constantly calls on his fellow contributors to man the barricades and then after declaring that iStock is so outrageous that he will probably never upload there again (and urging his fellow contributors to join him in sacrificing income) quietly chickens out a month later ...
However, contrary to your belief you are not the Voice of Microstock (there would be more people on this thread and this site if you were), though you may be good at working a crowd and browbeating those who disagree with you into silence (which happens to be a tactic that doesn't work with me - though according to Pixart it's a tactic that worked on Serban).
What I have done in this thread is not to "undermine my fellow contributors", it is to let them know what my opinions are so that they can see another point of view. Obviously, several people disagree with me, from the "down" arrows, but that's fair enough. Unlike you I don't hold to the Stalinist notion that my view is the only one that should be heard.
Excellent post
300
« on: January 20, 2015, 18:33 »
'Exciting' News = We have decided that we would like to buy a new helicopter, yacht, home in prestigious location, company, etc and have plans to relocate our offices to the most expensive vanity real estate locations on the planet.
We have decided that we are 'ENTITLED' to take the funds to pay for the above out of your hide. We do NOT care how this drop in income will affect your welfare, therefore we do not want to hear you whine about it and will not listen or care if you do!
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
