|
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 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 64
451
« on: June 22, 2014, 09:51 »
Contributors are waking up and it is clear for Oringer we are not even an afterthought. He views us simply as a way to make bank. Notice that he never once considers nor mentions what would be best for contributors in this equation to acquire more wealth.
I hate to break it to you, but that's the whole industry. I sold more subs at iStock/Thinkstock last month than I did at Shutterstock. This after leaving IS because I thought it was going to be worse than Shutterstock. Guess what? I was right. I'm selling at even lower RPD there now with a higher volume. Wooyay! I wish there was another way, but it's hard to make a living doing this without all the players.
I'm all for helping out a project that wants to make a difference in the industry, but I'm skeptical that one will form. I think small victories can be won like DPC or that illustrators get 20% again at IS, but those are barely victories in my opinion. There is still so much more out there for contributors to earn. My hope is that one day most contributors will come to see that, but it could be just an illusion based on my own numbers. I hope that is not the case though.
I agree and that is why we need to address the entire industry and not just the bottom of the barrel. If we do not step up to the plate to protect our interest the micro owners will take full advantage of our failure to protect our assets. The bottom line, if we do not take care of our interests, no one will.
452
« on: June 21, 2014, 22:41 »
Contributors are waking up and it is clear for Oringer we are not even an afterthought. He views us simply as a way to make bank. Notice that he never once considers nor mentions what would be best for contributors in this equation to acquire more wealth.
Snip
David Ethridge, senior vice president and head of capital markets for NYSE Euronext, tells Xconomy via e-mail that Oringer saw the potential to build his company via the public market rather than selling it.
The IPO on the NYSE provided him with access to capital, visibility, and brand support, Ethridge says. Since going public at $17 [per share] in fourth quarter 2012, Shutterstock has grown into a $1.6 billion market cap company with a $49 stock price. Currently $85
During a fireside chat Monday, Oringer said he had a variety of options on ways to elevate Shutterstock. I could have exited, I could have sold the company, I could have raised more capital from private equity,he said. Competitors, Oringer said, had also expressed interest in acquiring the company.
But he saw that Shutterstocks platform could scale up to something much bigger, making going public a viable option. We can build many things on top of it, he said. We dont have to stop at imagery and footage.
Any digital media we can sell in a high-value way. That includes the data weve collected along the way.
Oringer said he was ready to pull the trigger on going public when the company hit $100 million in sales last year. Thats the run rate it takes to go public, he said. All told, Shutterstock generated some $169.6 million in annual revenue in 2012 with $47.5 million in net income.
Snip
Oringer, a serial entrepreneur with a computer science background, founded Shutterstock in 2003 after his prior experiences launching other companies. Each time I went to create a new website, send out e-mail blasts, or anything to promote a product, I needed imagery, he said. The complex, expensive process of obtaining images and rights to use them prompted him to create a better way. Every business needs an image, Oringer said.
453
« on: June 21, 2014, 14:18 »
But then when he talks about "crowd sourcing" it is clear he doesn't get it. He shows really famous images that have earned a lot of money, but he doesn't know the name of the artists. He belittles "cliches" without appreciating the very hard work that goes into creating them. These images sold because they are so useful. But artists that consistently produce these images are very few. Anna makes fantastic stuff and her story is just as interesting as that of the editorial artists that he happens to know personally.
We just see the same thing again, there is no real understanding how crowdsourcing really works.
More than anything else I detected underlying resentment at Istocks disruption of getty's original market. He is trying to make the turn but the resentment is tinging the air. To bad we can not get past this energy in our own discussion, as bunhill mentions several times there is more to discuss.
454
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:55 »
It is a relatively small portion of stock that he sold at the same time he exercised his option to buy said shares. I find INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT's sales more interesting. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractionsShares Sold Date Name Shares 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 127,285 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 750,000 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 333,331 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 92,654 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 17,993 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 306,022 Buy 06/12/2014 INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT LLC 127,285 06/12/2014 Jeff Lieberman Director 6,993 06/12/2014 Jeff Lieberman Director 407
455
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:30 »
Unfortunately most people do not have experience working with databases and online applications.
They would buy your above sidestep of ongoing issues that you fail to address year after year. I do expect you to address the issues because it is not fair to contributors to let them go on indefinitely and if you are honest with yourself you know it is not right to let these issues continue.
456
« on: June 18, 2014, 18:45 »
This problem has been occurring since at least 2007 and shutterstock is fully aware of this fact. The thread link below in the shutterstocks bug forum is filled with missing images and thumbs caused by essentially the same problem. And yet over the last 4 years shutterstock has done nothing to resolve these server/database issues. Server sync problems continue to pop up in one form or another year after year. How many years do you expect contributors to deal with the issues and extra work your server/database problems are causing? For example in just one thread you have 137 pages and thousands of instances of the same glitch causing contributors extra work and lost sales. For Missing Images, PLEASE USE THIS THREAD http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196I would like and honest answer, when do you expect to be able to resolve this problem? Are you willing to do what it takes to put a nail in it once and for all or do you just expect us to put up with the lost productivity and sales, these server sync/database issues cause for us indefinitely?
457
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:50 »
Hi All,
We experienced some network latency issues today. New uploads are currently working, but images uploaded earlier today may temporarily appear as broken thumbnails in your account. Please **do not** delete those images; they should populate correctly into your account within the next 12-24 hours.
Thank you for your patience and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience!
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Really you are calling server sync issues "network latency issues"? LOL Snip Lets multiply some actual network latency durations by a billion: L1 cache reference 0.5 s One heart beat (0.5 s) Branch mispredict 5 s Yawn L2 cache reference 7 s Long yawn Mutex lock/unlock 25 s Making a coffee Main memory reference 100 s Brushing your teeth Compress 1K bytes with Zippy 50 min One episode of a TV show (including ad breaks) Send 2K bytes over 1 Gbps network 5.5 hr From lunch to end of work day Latency numbers every programmer should knowL1 cache reference ......................... 0.5 ns Branch mispredict ............................ 5 ns L2 cache reference ........................... 7 ns Mutex lock/unlock ........................... 25 ns Main memory reference ...................... 100 ns Compress 1K bytes with Zippy ............. 3,000 ns = 3 s Send 2K bytes over 1 Gbps network ....... 20,000 ns = 20 s SSD random read ........................ 150,000 ns = 150 s Read 1 MB sequentially from memory ..... 250,000 ns = 250 s Round trip within same datacenter ...... 500,000 ns = 0.5 ms Read 1 MB sequentially from SSD* ..... 1,000,000 ns = 1 ms Disk seek ........................... 10,000,000 ns = 10 ms Read 1 MB sequentially from disk .... 20,000,000 ns = 20 ms Send packet CA->Netherlands->CA .... 150,000,000 ns = 150 ms https://gist.github.com/hellerbarde/2843375
458
« on: June 17, 2014, 12:07 »
If you look at the bug thread on shutterstock. You will find that this is a long standing bug that shutterstock never seems to be able to fix. The problem has literately been going on intermittently for years.
This is the case with many bugs, I gave up reporting them to support years ago because they just do not seem to care to fix them. The standard reply is denial that there is a problem or the oh so often we are aware of the problem and are working hard to address it.
These threads need to be put into one long thread so that people can see, just how long this has been occurring with no resolution.
Hmmm I think that you are speaking about iStock here
Nope the problem has been occurring at shutterstock for many years, I could dig up untold examples. Here is just one from 2007. It looks like they deleted all Bugs / Glitches threads before 2007. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19649
459
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:44 »
If you look at the bug thread on shutterstock. You will find that this is a long standing bug that shutterstock never seems to be able to fix. The problem has literately been going on intermittently for years.
This is the case with many bugs, I gave up reporting them to support years ago because they just do not seem to care to fix them. The standard reply is denial that there is a problem or the oh so often we are aware of the problem and are working hard to address it.
These threads need to be put into one long thread so that people can see, just how long this has been occurring with no resolution.
460
« on: June 17, 2014, 10:30 »
I think agencies (the big ones) can have plenty of profitability with 70 to 85 and more percent of each sale.
Even the smaller sites seem to be sticking around, thus they must also be profitable. We can see from shutterstocks balance sheet that even with the high rents they are paying at some of the most expensive real estate in the world they are quite profitable. So much so that they can afford to stiff contributors by not raising prices since 2008, they are so profitable they chose to keep pricing stagnant for many years so that they can low ball competitors to gain a majority of market share. Now it is a simple fact that if they cared about contributors they would raise prices, they know full well that the market is not going anywhere and that it can bear modest increases. Since it is clear these sites do not care about their contributors, it is time for us to care about ourselves and take steps to protect our interests.
461
« on: June 16, 2014, 13:19 »
I would guess, based on their history, that they tested different price points until they found the one that gave them the best returns. If you price too high you might lose customers, too low and you don't make enough profit.
As you know I have posted this many times and yet most ignore the facts. Shutterstock has clearly stated that they know they could raise prices and they have chosen not to with the objective of keeping them low to gain market share. Snip Duck Swartz Talking about your present strategy longer term?Timothy E. Bixby - CFO We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.
We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.Snip Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.http://tinyurl.com/m6rlaq2
462
« on: June 16, 2014, 13:10 »
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
even that (which is a ton more than all stock agencies, talking about the ones with buyers) would still get us a few dollars and millions for him, its just a big business with tons of buyers and contributors
Jon will always be a Silicon Valley billionaire and we his little contributors, that will never change
Bruce has stated publicly that 50% is fair, he is one of the few people who has the data to determine a fair rate. I grew up in a company with a philosophy similar to Costco's thou they paid at a much higher scale. They believed that for a company to be truly successful you had to take good care of the people who powered it on a daily basis. That philosophy paid off. The company was merit shop or non union in a largely union industry. In its' 60 year history its employees never once considered unionizing because there they were taken care of and there was no need to organize. They did have much higher productivity levels compared to their unionized competitors and they took care of the companies interests because they cared about a company who cared about them. In the end the above company is a Fortune 200 company with revenues of 3 Billion per year. The owner would be the first to tell you he did not accomplish this alone and you would be surprised to see how little he took from the company because he knew that his own success was tied to making sure his employees prospered. You can see this same philosophy played out to a lesser degree between Costco and Walmart Costco Shows You Can Have Low Prices and Decent Payhttp://www.moneytalksnews.com/2013/06/10/costco-shows-you-can-have-both-low-prices-and-decent-pay/#eDKpZVXml7QcYvfq.99Costco strongly believes in investing in its employees. The average pay at Costco is $20.89 an hour, compared with $12.67 an hour at Walmart, Businessweek says. At Costco, 88 percent of employees have company-sponsored health insurance, Businessweek adds. Walmart says more than half of its do. Then theres how much their CEOs make. Last year, Costcos CEO got: a $650,000 salary. A $200,000 bonus. $4 million in stock options. In contrast, Walmarts CEO got: a $1.3 million salary. a $4.4 million bonus. $13.6 million in stock options. Since 2009, Costcos stock price has doubled and its sales have grown 39 percent. While some chains are being undercut by Amazon, Costco isnt. During the recession, while retail rivals were cutting jobs, the company gave its employees a $1.50 raise that cost nearly $20 million, Businessweek says. Snip On Thursday Costco reported earnings of $473 million, or $1.07 per share, on revenue of $25.23 billion.
463
« on: June 16, 2014, 12:47 »
Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation?
what % should Jon pay us? 50%?
Actually, he might be poor if he paid us that much because the company wouldn't be making a profit. They could always raise prices though. I guess that is a question to ask yourself. If a company can't afford to pay you 50% with their expenses, are they charging enough to their customers.
They have publicly admitted that they have room to raise prices and have chosen not to do so, with the business objective of gaining market share. This move affects its contributors livelyhoods because out expenses increase each and every year.
464
« on: June 16, 2014, 00:29 »
have you ever thought about other businesses?
are farmers getting as much as the supermarkets? are musicians getting as much as labels? are writers getting as much as publishers? are doctors getting as much as the company owner they work for?
unfortunately the world isn't ready to share the wealth created using other "work", what would you pay if you were Jon?
you can ask whatever you wish and I would love a few raises too but why would Jon be different from the rest of the world? not even going to talk about the direct competitors % royalties.
The reality of the situation is that in the US where many of these micro have set up shop, they are back to early 1900's income inequality levels and at the time the era watched the rise of much needed trade unions as a result of huge income gaps. Don't you think it is about time to start demanding fair compensation? Is Wealth Inequality Rising in the U.S.?http://tinyurl.com/kfxeyfh CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earnershttp://tinyurl.com/p2lduk3The Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI) has today released its report highlighting the intense state of insecurity American workers are experiencing as they look forwardwith ever increasing trepidationto a retirement without sufficient money to see them through.According to the data, American workers have very good reason to be afraid. http://tinyurl.com/dx48ya3Putting CEO Pay in PerspectiveHow much more do CEOs at America's highest-grossing companies earn compared to their workers? The size of the circles in this infographic illustrates the difference in pay between a CEO and his or her employees. How Does CEO Pay Compare to Median Worker Salary? Roll over the info graphic in the page below to reveal details http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/ceo-worker-pay_n_5332039.html
465
« on: June 15, 2014, 16:27 »
we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content.
And who is to gauge the 'quality' of our content?
It is 'most sales' so an apple isolated on white or a business handshake might be 'top quality'.
Or rarity of subject?
Or cost to take (how would anyone know?)
Or ... ?
That question has an easy answer. The market will decide. If your image is of such high quality that it can't be reproduced by someone more cheaply, then the market will pay you what you think you deserve for it.
Football players make a lot of money because they're the only ones who can play their sport at such a high level. They have a rare ability. Image makers who can make images on such a high level have nothing to worry about when it comes to microstock.
The buyer market lost its ability to decide, once the sites made search changes developed to serve content which would bring them the highest income per download; instead of letting buyers choose which content would be popular.
466
« on: June 15, 2014, 16:12 »
Does it matter?
Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general?
The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008.
That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share.
I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.
I don't think there's a person here who wouldn't love a better payout and wishes their work sold for higher prices.
But you seem focused on one site in particular--the one that brings in the most earnings for most of us and the one that's actually looking for ways to sell images for higher prices rather than lower. Not that I wouldn't mind if Oringer paid us a little better and was happy being a simple multimillionaire rather than a billionaire.
There are ways for micro sites to compete other than just slashing prices. That's a desperate move by companies lacking ideas. They're being reactive rather than proactive, and they're reacting a decade too late.
From my perspective if you are going to work on improving the inequity of the situation, why would you choose to work at improving earnings at microsites which impact our earnings in a limited fashion. Meaning sites that have a small percentage of market share. The fact that Jon has become a very wealthy on the strength and value of our hard work an assets is fine, however the spread between his earning and ours has become inordinate or disproportionally excessive! Wealth and Income Distribution - Reality VS Perception http://tinyurl.com/nvorqxf!
467
« on: June 15, 2014, 15:10 »
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.38 or 135% of each download
So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.
No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008.
We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents.
Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014.
In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download
In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.
Which earning category are you in?
Does it matter? Instead of FYIGM, shouldn't we be thinking of the welfare of the industry in general? The cold reality is that our percentage of earnings is dropping each year and our cost to produce image assets is rising, while shutterstock is content to undercut pricing for the entire industry by not raising sub prices since 2008. That leaves us in the nasty position to see competitors follow suit with the likes of DPC in an attempt to garner market share. I think it is time for us to step up to the plate and send a message to all of the sites that we expect to be paid a fair rate for our images and this should be linked to the quality of content. Fair compensation based on the real equity of our assets.
468
« on: June 15, 2014, 13:12 »
Here's a fact. If it wasn't for Shutterstock, I wouldn't be making any money from stock photography. Not one single penny. That's where I started, and that's where I've grown. If it wasn't for that model, I'd be $24,000 a year poorer. And that amount will continue to get higher.
It doesn't matter what they do, Gbalex, I wouldn't have that money if not for Shutterstock and only Shutterstock. It doesn't matter if that money came from other photographers somehow. Because that's money I wouldn't have otherwise.
SNIP
"Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. "
SNIP
I'm fine with that because I'm micro Paul!
This type of thinking is consistent with the decisions you report in various forum threads and explains why you have no problem staying opted into DPC.
469
« on: June 15, 2014, 13:10 »
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Subscription Reality
2007
$0.25 or 119% of each download
2014
$0.38 or 135% of each download
So not just a raise, but also a higher percentage of each download.
No it is the exact opposite, we receive a smaller or lower percentage for each download. And they have not raised sub prices since 2008. We receive a smaller percentage even when you average all four royalty levels together which is .33 cents. Even as an average which in reality the percentage is much higher than actual numbers; because only a very small percentage of contributors reach the top two pay tiers. Yet when you average those higher numbers into the equation, we still see a decrease in percentage earned in 2014. In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and shutterstock pay's contributors an average across all pay scales of .33 cents per image or 117% for each download for all pay levels combined. And 89% for each download for the first pay level which comprises the large majority of shutterstock contributors.
470
« on: June 15, 2014, 10:56 »
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
Yes and no. If you buy a subs package you get whatever, but instead of forcing Subs, buyers have an option for singles, and other uses at higher prices. Thus, both are kind of true. One price for people willing to buy 25 A Day, but single sales at a better return for us, if someone wants a single image.
Point is still, we knew what subs were when we signed up. SS has raised commissions and added levels, over the original flat payment. Early people should admit that, and not produce long lists of diversionary financial reports. We aren't stock holders, we are suppliers.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory. Subscription Reality In 2007 shutterstock charged buyers 21 cents per image downloaded and paid contributors 25 cents or 119% of each download In 2014 shutterstock charges buyers 28 per image downloaded and pay's contributors .25 to .38 cents or 89% of each download for the first pay level and 117% of each download for the second pay level. This makes it clear why shutterstock works hard to gain new contributors and promote their images in buyer searches. 2007 25 photos a day for $199 per month or $1,999 per year or 21 cents per image 2014 25 photos a day for $299 per month or $2,559 per year or 28 cents per image 2007 $0.25 or 119% of each download 2014 $0.25 or 89% of each download $0.33 or 117% of each download $0.36 or 128% of each download $0.38 or 135% of each download 2007 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule Photographers are paid 25 cents royalty 2008 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule Photographers are paid 25 cents to 30 cents if you have earned $500 or more in sales from Shutterstock 2014 Shutterstock Royalty Schedule $0.25 @ 0 - $500 Lifetime earnings $0.33 @ $500 - $3,000 Lifetime earnings $0.36 @ $3,000 - $10,000 Lifetime earnings $0.38 @ $10,000 + Lifetime earnings
471
« on: June 14, 2014, 15:59 »
image quality should have some rewards, beyond subs. Hey wait, didn't SS add OD, Single Sales and other ways for buyers to pay more, without having a subscription. And those pay us more?
Do those ways of paying more depend upon the quality of an image ? Isn't all content at SS in the same priced pool - no matter its quality, rarity or the cost of production ?
I would never applaud the fact that any of the micros used price undercutting to upsell its content to existing higher end customers by low balling the offerings of existing higher end competitors. The move in 2008 to On Demand was buyer and not contributor benifit driven. In 2007, Jon toyed with creating a shutter stock brand that focus on "higher-priced photos" to start moving into Getty's market". However in the end Jon chose to keep images which could have been included in higher end collections at sub and eventually on demand pricing levels; with the intent of gaining market share. As you can see Jon knew full well that such mid level images had a market, yet he stiffed high end shutterstock contributors in leiu of calculated shutterstock market growth. Snip "Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated." But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" http://tinyurl.com/22vdhjShutterstock Launches New "On Demand" Subscription to Serve Full Spectrum of Stock Image Buyers World's largest subscription-based online stock photo agency debuts four new plans for customers who need limited quantities of images New York, NY Aug 5, 2008 Snip Shutterstock's new On Demand plans are ideal solutions for stock image users who need quality images in limited quantities. Customers can download images anytime over a one-year period by paying a one-time fee of $49 or $229, depending on the quantity and resolution of the images desired. Within the plans, prices range from $4 per download for smaller sizes to $10 per download for the largest sizes and for vector images. "We're always looking for ways to better serve the needs of our customers," said Shutterstock CEO and Founder Jon Oringer. "On Demand provides a flexible option for businesses and individuals who do not always need the volume of images provided by our original subscription plan. In the constantly changing online stock photography marketplace, the addition of On Demand allows us to cater to the full spectrum of stock photo users." http://tinyurl.com/m7q8mvuPhoto wars: A $2 billion business gets rough - The giants of the stock photo business--Getty Images and Corbis--are being challenged by a flock of tiny "microstock" agencies. And it's become a game that almost anyone can play, reports Business 2.0 Magazine. Business 2.0 Magazine By Robert Levine, Business 2.0 Magazine April 4 2007 Snip Klein's initial plan for dealing with the microstock revolution was to buy into it. In early 2006 Getty purchased iStockphoto for $50 million. As he tells it, the revolution is a blessing in disguise. Most of iStockphoto's customers could never have bought an image before, and many probably simply copied what they needed. If Klein can bring them in the door with iStockphoto, he might get some of them to consider Getty's better images, and to this end he'll introduce a new line of photos that is more expensive than microstock but cheaper than the company's other offerings. "Our aim is to provide imagery for every budget," Klein says. "I want as much share of each customer's wallet as possible." Snip "Reports of the demise of traditional stock," Klein says, "are exaggerated." But technology seems to favor his new competitors. "Our advantage is efficiency," says Shutterstock's Oringer. "And if Getty can use iStockphoto to upsell its customers, why we can't we use higher-priced photos to start moving into its market?" Snip David and the two Goliaths In a Manhattan Starbucks, a continent and a sensibility removed from the Corbis and Getty offices, Tscheltzoff is describing how Fotolia is trying to play David to the industry Goliaths. The company offers 2.2 million images taken by 25,000 photographers, but it employs only 18 people--all but three of whom work from home. "We IM and talk on Skype," says Tscheltzoff, a Frenchman who splits his time between New York City and Paris. When he needs to take a meeting, he says with a sweep of his hand, "this is my office." Today's rent is a small iced coffee, which he sips as he explains how his business works. As he describes it, the microstock model is the picture of efficiency. Submissions pour in electronically from photographers, who get 50 percent or more of the proceeds of each sale. The company has few inventory concerns, no shipping issues, and hardly any operating costs. The business broke even after eight months, Tscheltzoff says. (He won't reveal much more, except that annual sales are less than $10 million.) The biggest expense is marketing: selling the company to both prospective contributors and potential customers. "If you don't have buyers, you don't get photos," he says. "And if you don't have photos, you don't get buyers." Next Net 25: Startups to watch Other microstock sites--there are several large ones and dozens of smaller entries--tell a similar story, although the details differ. Jon Oringer, founder and CEO of Shutterstock, based in New York City, sells low-cost photos by subscription--25 photos a day for $199 per month or $1,999 per year. The other large independent player is Dreamstime, based in Brentwood, Tenn., which operates more like Fotolia and has been profitable since launch, according to COO Jeff Prescott. At all these sites, employees decide what photos to accept, but the contributors do much of the work of organizing the material--submitting their pictures with keywords that are then scanned by the sites' search engines. "The margins are great," says Alan Meckler, CEO of Jupiter Images, which pioneered a low-cost subscription model before the microstocks arriv http://tinyurl.com/22vdhj
472
« on: June 12, 2014, 06:57 »
My stats are also about half what I would normally expect with a lot less ODs.
I have a friend who follows Google rankings very closely as they run a business that is dependent on them. They told me that there had been a major shake-up of Google placement (something called 'Panda' maybe? I can't quite remember) and that their site that had been in the doldrums for a couple of years was suddenly on page 1 again. As soon as they told me this (around the 26th of May), my SS and DT OD sales tanked and OD sales at the smaller agencies suddenly picked up. If what they said is correct then this would make sense as it would mean that the smaller agencies were being found by non-sub buyers who were searching one image at a time via Google.
Unfortunately the increased sales at smaller agencies has not been enough to compensate for losing sales at SS and so I am now quite down for this stage of the month. So if my friends are right about it then I hope Google change it back soon or either SS and DT find a way to get back into good Google placement again because this is killing me.
Google Algorithm Change Historyhttp://moz.com/google-algorithm-change
473
« on: June 11, 2014, 19:21 »
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.
I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets.
I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.
As far as I now SS started with a baseline subs business model. They have not (unless someone can tell me differently) done anything but go in the right direction in terms of pricing and commissions. If you look at Istock, backwards. Fotolia, backwards, RF123, backwards, etc. Just stating the obvious. Subs are here to stay, unfortunately but SS has done a good job of working to benefit the contributors, FAR MORE THAT ANY OTHER MICROSTOCK AGENCY.
I joined shutterstock shortly after they opened. I would not say that purposely keeping sub pricing at the same price for 8 or 9 years is NOT going in the right direction. In the beginning shuttersock advertized that you could earn money from images sitting idle on your hard drive and the quality of images in the shuttersotck collection reflected this. Image quality is no where near what it was in 2004 yet shutterstock's sub pricing has remained unchanged. I agree with Yuri's early comments that the distinct and rapid rise in picture quality standards should have guided contributor payout/royalty price per image! At the very least they could have split off higher end content to an Offset like model as quality rose beyond the low sub value that they purposely used to gain market share. As an example here is an example of image quality in 2005 from one of shutterstocks leading contributors. Yuri's 2005 response to the question - What's your favorite picture in your gallery?  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793Another example of image quality from Yuri, whose user name on the shutterstock forum was Logos. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402Here are Yuri's 2005 thoughts on SS's Royalties vs Image Quality Snip This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures. As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before. Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture! http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821
474
« on: June 11, 2014, 18:01 »
I agree collectively they could choose to keep pricing at a level which would be sustainable to contributors. However some of them have chosen to go down the road that leads to the point of no return for contributors.
In my opinion shutterstock has lead the way in this regard when it comes to subs and as you can see they admit they have used this strategy to successfully gain substantial market in the micro stock photography market.
As a result we see other microstock companies following suit so that they do not continue to lose market share to a contributors who purposely kept pricing low as a business strategy to capture a larger share of the micro market.
I think we essentially agree (for the most part). I just have trouble laying too much blame on any one agency. We all trusted these agencies with the moral/financial decisions of our businesses thinking that our best interests were their best interests as well. In hindsight, that seems like a really poor decision.
I agree, to be honest I highlight shutterstock because so many people here, give the site a complete pass. I think offering a different point of view lends perspective that shutterstock is not blameless and its business decisions have also contributed to the devaluation of our assets. I could not agree more regarding our misguided trust, if we had all realized where we were headed years ago I am sure the sites would have had far more pressure to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to protecting the interests of contributors. If we continue to fail to hold the sites accountable we might as well move on.
475
« on: June 11, 2014, 12:51 »
Those who claim anonymity bears no or little weight in terms of the value of their post can go suck a lemon. Not being anonymous is costing some people chunks of their livelihood.
Could not agree more.
Albeit we'll all be voted down by the couple of people that think we are all trolls.
They know who they are, 'freebie guy's' 
I can count on a few people consistently attacking me here on MSG, no matter what I post. They seem to have a particular aversion to simple facts. They also vote down every post I make. This link is a perfect example, I simply posted a link to positive news and received personal bashing. http://tinyurl.com/pne46uc
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
