|
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 - luissantos84
4101
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:57 »
Michael why dont you have all your port up there? 
4102
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:40 »
what agency will follow SS, FT moves? thats why I love stock really, I dont need much money to be happy too  p.s: thanks for sharing the new and the video too, appreciated it
4103
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:23 »
Please review the posts in this thread, the OP was actually reuploading other people's work as his own. No doubt by now he has opened another account to continue his nefarious activity under a different name, I don't think speaking to IStock is going to help him.
sweet 
4104
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:12 »
I wonder if they lost all client contacts/database whatever...
4105
« on: May 17, 2012, 09:25 »
Michael I am with you! not many sales but I still believe in it, we need to, SF spend a few more $$ too
4106
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:26 »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514
"Shutterstocks total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
thanks for sharing we do deserve a raise lol
"For the year ended 2011, Shutterstock earned 21.8 million on a revenue of $120.2 million. More than 550,000 active, paying users contributed to revenue in 2011, representing an increase of 71 percent compared to the prior year."
ok double raise
4107
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:25 »
this is a first for me. Did the sale show up first? Are returns becoming the norm? Just glad each sales was only .30 Could you see getting a return on a $100 photo- that would hurt!
I have 26 returns from 760 sales
4109
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:15 »
I can understand to a point some of your philosophy, I would also welcome macro, midstock or whatever yoju might call it. The thing is, we are not alone in micro. many years back, yes, micro photographers. Today! I can assure you, most, even famous photographers, getty RM photographers are supplying micro and all under different pseudos, etc.
Seriously though, you can not think that people would stop buying and use what? they havent got the time for alternative methods or whatever, they havent got the time to rig or shoot pictures themselves. Thats why they buy! No matter how much governments are rising prices on booze, ciggies, petrol, people are still boozing, smoking and driving.
Do you really think photos are as important to people as fuel? And booze and smoking are addictive, so once people start, they can't quit. The parallel just doesn't work. Sorry. You, of all people, who have been in the industry for so long, should know what people did before microstock. Though I've already explained it countless times. Some *might* start taking photos themselves (after all, that was how iStock started - designers were taking their own photos because they couldn't afford macrostock prices and decided to trade them), others will do without photos and will simply find other solutions to take their place. Photos are just one tool in a designer's toolbox. As for the people who aren't designers - churches, school teachers, bloggers, etc - they may just steal photos or not use them at all.
It's weird how people seem to have forgotten the origins of microstock and the pre-microstock days aren't really ancient history. I bet you can find a lot of designers who would tell you what they did before the advent of inexpensive photos.
now please tell us that SS will be sold for a cent
4110
« on: May 14, 2012, 16:00 »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514
"Shutterstocks total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
delete
4111
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:55 »
whatever they are doing I am having a lot more Credit sales so I am heading for a BME, that said doesnt mean much..
4112
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:47 »
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/14/idUS173640104520120514
"Shutterstocks total revenue has grown from $61.1 million in 2009 to $83.0 million in 2010 and $120.3 million in 2011 representing a compound annual growth rate of 40.3 percent since 2009, according to the S-1 filing.
The company will use money from the IPO for operational purposes, as well as possibly acquiring other companies that are strategic to its current business."
thanks for sharing we do deserve a raise lol
4113
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:45 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml
5 image pack is $49
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml
second box down is: Images:
Multi-Image On Demand $0.81 up to $1.24(once you make $10,000)
(Small/Med)
.81 is about 8% of $9.80 which is the price of 1 image in a 5 image pack while $1.24 is less than 13%.
NOP!
12 and 60 downloads, 5 and 25 downloads are the ALL SIZES
I don't see that offered.
12 for expensive pack and 60 for cheaper, thats S and M sizes, check my maths above
4115
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:24 »
But don't forget that IS's stated goal is 20% and at least so far SS hasn't said that.
SS's goal is 25%.
I don't know, by my calculations it's about 8%. 5 image pack for $49 = $9.8 per image. They pay 81 cents at the lowest for small multi on demand sales which is about 8% right? BTW what is the justification for paying different amounts for medium and large files when it looks like it costs the buyer the same amount to buy either?
no, thats not correct just spent a few minutes doing the contributor royalties % at SS (% between () from the lowest to the highest canister)
Subscription
a) 263$ for 750 downloads - 0.35$ each (71.4%, 94.2%, 102.8%, 108.5%)
b) 708$ for 2250 downloads - 0.314$ each (79.6%, 105%, 114.6%, 121%)
c) 1367$ for 4500 downloads - 0.303$ each (82.5%, 108.9%, 118.8%, 125.4%)
d) 2584$ for 9000 downloads - 0.287$ each (87.1%, 114.9%, 125.4%, 132.4%)
On Demand
- All sizes
a) 51$ for 5 downloads - 10.2$ each (18.4%, 24.3%, 26.4%, 27.9%)
b) 235$ for 25 downloads - 9.4$ each (20%, 26.3%, 28.7%, 30.3%)
- S and M sizes
a) 51$ for 12 downloads - 4.25$ each (18.9%, 25.1%, 27.5%, 29.1%)
b) 235$ for 60 downloads - 3.92$ each (20.6%, 27.3%, 29.8%, 31.6%)
EL
a) 201$ for 2 downloads - 100.5$ each (27.8%)
b) 455$ for 5 downloads - 91$ each (30.7%)
c) 1722$ for 25 downloads - 69$ each (40.5%)
P.S: a few minutes after posting this at SS forum it got removed
4116
« on: May 14, 2012, 15:15 »
sub from 71.4% to 132.4%
od from 18.4% to 31.6%
el from 27.8% to 40.5%
is iStock paying more?
For me it is, PP sub sales are about 11% higher than at SS per sale (I didn't check sub plan pricing but I think they are about the same so IS would be paying a higher %). On Demand sales are probably on average about 25%, while single image OD are 20% which is the same or lower than a base level exclusive. And ELs (I doubt too many people buy the 25 EL packs) are probably closer to 30% on average which is the same or less than the majority of exclusives. The point was that SS is not giving really high commissions. In fact if your issue with IS is that they give too low commissions it would make more sense to be exclusive since SS gives lower commissions than they do.
But back on topic, my guess is SS will raise prices and keep commissions the same.
I understand your point BUT we cannot see exclusives %, we need to see what IS offer to indies (regular and pp) or it would be quite unfair that said I believe that IS does have a nice RPD even for indies but with number of sales decreasing along time SS is becoming way more relevant to the majority of indies, we need to add to this equation that subs arent no longer the core of the SS sales, ODs are increasing and also new single sales which are quite big increasing the RPD I hope that SS keep on doing the same stuff as before which is keeping buyers/contributors happy
4117
« on: May 14, 2012, 14:16 »
I'm not overly worried. If Jon was looking to maximise short-term return then he would have jumped on the same price-increase and lower-commission bandwagon that other greedy b@stards have done. By doing so he might have made far more from the IPO. He hasn't done that and appears content to grow his business by doing the right thing and benefiting from the mistakes of others. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm sure Jon must also have had innumerous offers to sell the entire business outright over the years but again has refused to do so.
Don't forget that whilst the shareholders might collectively own the business they don't get to run it in any meaningful way. Provided that the business continues to grow then they should be kept content.
I think the ultimate objective of this move is to grow an image empire to rival or beat the traditional agencies such as Getty and Corbis both of which have been painfully slow to adapt to the threats of new technology and the interweb.
You know shutterstock pays out UP TO 38 cents on an XXXL image and 20-30% on single image sales already, say what you will about other sites but that's not exactly paying out high commissions is it?
sub from 71.4% to 132.4% od from 18.4% to 31.6% el from 27.8% to 40.5% is iStock paying more?
4118
« on: May 14, 2012, 11:58 »
I'm not going to take much notice of this until the full details are revealed. Would be nice if they gave some free shares to their contributors who have done a lot to build up their business.
LOL
4119
« on: May 14, 2012, 07:32 »
basically I believe if they ever do a cleaning they should start on older files without any sales but back in 1900 when everything would sell so might not be that accurate, the all deleting has a lot of costs not to mention that reviewers were paid to approve those files..
another thing is that buyers looking for a picture wont go over 50k results, they will go over the 1-5 first pages, so all the crap aint making the job harder for buyers
25% of my portfolio at SS never sold
4120
« on: May 14, 2012, 07:12 »
my regular IS earnings are usually 2x the PP
4121
« on: May 14, 2012, 06:53 »
I wonder how much time will pass until we will starting to see deleted images ( SS is having 20 mil images online)....
that doesnt make sense at least in terms of their collection, sure it could be 5 M but why going down from the 20 M, would it be better for us and for buyers too? shall we stop uploading?
4122
« on: May 13, 2012, 15:50 »
4124
« on: May 12, 2012, 16:16 »
how many posts did that person say "this is lame"
not that much
4125
« on: May 12, 2012, 16:06 »
it is helping me but same number of sales, maybe more ODs
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
