|
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 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 64
476
« on: June 09, 2014, 14:01 »
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.
That seems kind of old. Those magnitudes don't really exist anymore. Most other agencies are cheaper now or the same deal.
Not so old, 6 or 7 months ago and as we can see Fotolia & IS were forced to make adjustments downward in order to compete. This has not been good for contributors as it degrades the value of the asset we pay for and produce.
To put it further into perspective, Jon is talking about SOD's when he mention this phrase. "If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive."
Does anyone think it is beneficial in any way to undercut the existing macro market by 8 or 10 times?
Shutterstock's Management Presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference
http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco
Nobody forced these companies to do these things. They chose to do them. They don't have to do them to compete. IS cruised along just fine without subs for a long time.
As far as the benefit of undercutting macro, I've never sold in that market, so I'm not sure I'd be typing this if it was the only game in town.
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.
477
« on: June 09, 2014, 01:04 »
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.
That seems kind of old. Those magnitudes don't really exist anymore. Most other agencies are cheaper now or the same deal.
Not so old, 6 or 7 months ago and as we can see Fotolia & IS were forced to make adjustments downward in order to compete. This has not been good for contributors as it degrades the value of the asset we pay for and produce. To put it further into perspective, Jon is talking about SOD's when he mention this phrase. "If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive." Does anyone think it is beneficial in any way to undercut the existing macro market by 8 or 10 times? Shutterstock's Management Presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco
478
« on: June 08, 2014, 22:53 »
Shutterstock has not raised sub prices in 9 years. Key execs at shutterstock are completely aware that Image quality has raised considerably in that time and yet they have made no adjustments because they are strictly going after market share to our detriment.
I don't see how it's to our detriment if it keeps increasing sales and my income, which it has. There are other stock sites out there that are cheaper than Shutterstock, but you don't see them dropping prices to match.
You also leave out the fact that Shutterstock has introduced different purchasing options including On Demand, Extended License, sensitive use and Single Image packages in addition to working with "Enterprise" clients, all of which have dramatically increased prices for certain uses and improved earnings from contributors exponentially. Shutterstock's SOD pricing and earnings are as close to midstock as any site.
Totally agree here. This is where Shutterstock's strength lies. Finding customers, selling the value add of their various licensing options, aligning those options to a target markets and then marketing to them. It's all about building trust, enhancing the customer experience, making the customers feel that they are getting value and this results in customer sustainment. And in the middle of adding customer value, they pushed up our revenue instead of take it all for themselves, something Oleg needs to learn. SS success compared to, say, Fotolia, lies in superior vision followed by strategic and tactical alignment that INCLUDES its contributors as part of that broader strategy.
You guys seem to be oblivious to the fact that these "new areas of growth at shutterstock" are not new stock photography customers. Robbing macro peter to pay micro paul less; further degrades multiple existing stock photography segments, which many photographers count on to make a living. I have posted this many times, but it seems most are not reading between the lines or you are purposely overlooking the facts. Tell me again why you are happy to see the value of photography assets drop thru the floor boards or in shutterstocks own words. A. So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.B. 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.It is beyond me why anyone would buy into this Kmart mentality. Snip Duck Swartz So whats changed in the marketplace thats giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?Timothy E. Bixby - CFO The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 yearsSo in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.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 thats 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.
479
« on: June 08, 2014, 09:00 »
I would agree the main problem is inconsistency and this has been the case for many years.
Fortunately as a group we have decided to not point out individual contributors. However there are well know case in point examples of this review inconsistency between individual contributors.
It is frustrating for contributors as a group to watch one well known individual who submits virtually everything they snap in very high numbers and for us to see that almost everything he shoots is accepted by shutterstock. Over the years we have consistently watched very low quality content with a myriad of technical and content defects make their way into this port along with high number of "virtually identical snaps" in submission after submission.
At the same time some of your best contributors with pristine carefully planed and processed ports are receiving rejections for content of much higher quality.
As much as shutterstock would like to explain this inconsistency between reviews away "It Is A Fact" which is well know amongst us and shutterstock consistently refuses to address it.
If shutterstock were going to be honest about the quality of it's own review process, a quick look at it new image pages each day would sufficiently highlight the inconsistency between images accepted into the shutterstock collection.
480
« on: June 04, 2014, 18:15 »
I don't have a take on if Yuri can turn around Istock. I hope he is able to do some good, but not sure its possible. The investment company that runs Getty have shown they can do a lot of damage. Maybe they will wise up, listen, and turn it around, but more likely just dress up the dog and sell it to the next owners.
I would agree with most of your points!
Then you are very smart and deserve a +1!
Capitalism never thinks beyond the next quarter's balance sheet  http://tinyurl.com/a3luc5c
481
« on: June 04, 2014, 13:17 »
I don't have a take on if Yuri can turn around Istock. I hope he is able to do some good, but not sure its possible. The investment company that runs Getty have shown they can do a lot of damage. Maybe they will wise up, listen, and turn it around, but more likely just dress up the dog and sell it to the next owners.
I would agree with most of your points!
482
« on: June 04, 2014, 12:47 »
Gbalex, you don't have a minus from me but I guess you got them because you attack everybody for talking about Yuri. His history shows he is out only for himself, plus he is a big bragger and nobody likes a bragger. If someone loudly talks about how much better they are than all others, those others naturally get some schadenfreude when he falls short. Its human nature.
Yes I am guilty of this today. I guess I am just sick of attacks on other people here. Lets us hear your take on each subject but leave the petty crap and bickering out of the discussions. Yes Yuri is a bragger and he brings some of this on himself. However as always he does bring positive to the plate and the put down gang leaves this part out. It would nice if we could rise above the petty crap and elevate our discussions via the idiom. "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
483
« on: June 04, 2014, 10:33 »
its way below than what he has doing, he was already at 3M back in 2012 (the year before going "exclusive")
Income way higher than $3 Million a year, 8 figures in sight
Yuri licenses over 10 million individual images each and every year (which works out to about 5000 per day).
http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/
If such figures are true, when he found out that his high production costs were unsustainable for subs sites, the only sensible thing to do was to just shut down his unsustainable business and go solo, instead of signing the "professionals deal with professionals" deal and deleting his port from SS. He could have earned a few million dollars each year forever at no additional costs. Plus, a lot of free time to enjoy better things in photography and life than stock.
I never said this before because I thought it's not my business. But since he's now our self-proclaimed manager to save iStock and the world in 3 months I had to say it.
Decisions like this, and his mobile stock site, are enough for me not to trust him as a my project manager. Of course, I wish him to be very successful in everything he'll decide to do for himself - but just not for us, please. iStock are very able to take bad decisions by themselves, no need for a guru's help.
Personally I don't think Yuri has enough experience to develop a site as large as IS. However I have used both PP and IS as a buyer and found the buying experience superior at PP. Could be a simple as IS taking advantage of his experience producing his own site.
484
« on: June 04, 2014, 10:17 »
Whose is it, then?
Logos is Yuri and yes the picture does belong to him. Image quality rose light years since 2005 when he posted his favorite photo.
485
« on: June 04, 2014, 10:15 »
Yuri has been asking the sites to raise pricing and sub pricing for years.
Me too, although I assume they aren't listening. I have no problem with him going off and getting a good deal for himself, but he might have gotten more of what he wanted if he invited the rest of us to help. He was never going to get it done by himself because no ONE contributor is very important.
I agree, though at the time the frogs were happily soaking in the pot. Luckily a group of Russians stepped up to change our collective mindset somewhat. I do think positive change is possible now.
486
« on: June 04, 2014, 10:11 »
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so!
Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
What is stopping you to pack up your images from SS and broker the same Yuri deal with IS?
Same old gang giving me - negative votes and bagging on my every comment. Do you have any solutions? To those who criticize. Step up to the plate with an intelligent plan instead of bagging on those who at least attempt to make a positive difference. Have any of you flown to speak to micro owners about the state of affairs, at least Yuri has been in discussion with the sites and if they had listened to him it would have been positive for all of us, whether that was his intent or not. The IS site is a mess and has been for a long while, someone needs to step to the plate.
487
« on: June 04, 2014, 10:01 »
"Professionals deal with professionals" - he made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it.
Let's hope his bed isn't a water bed with a large hole in it 
Someone miss quoted me I never made the comment ""Professionals deal with professionals" - he made his bed. Now he gets to lie in it." This is Jo Ann Snover's comment I prefer to discuss problems and solutions.
488
« on: June 03, 2014, 17:32 »
istock has a subs program that is paying out less to even the exclusives than the indies make on SS. And they pay out a much lower rate to the indies than SS.
What makes you think Yuri wasnt part of implementing that program as well? Or that he is driving for higher prices in any way?
Id say it makes sense to assume that Yuri was involved or consulted when they created their subs program, because he has so much experience with sub sites.
I am all for having many agencies to choose from, but sadly for indies with 15% royalty and extremly low 28 cent subs (that dont even count towards the credits) istock isnt the first place to favor is it?
Yuri has been asking the sites to raise pricing and sub pricing for years. I am no fan of IS or its antiquated site. However I an under no illusion that shutterstock will do us any favors once it's qwest to become a monopoly is realized. Yuri is one contributors who early on asked shutterstock to look at image quality. They ignored him and today we can see the result of shutterstocks mindset. Today we can download images that should be midstock at a number of micro sites. They all should have promoted contributors from within, to brands like offset. Instead they devalued those images and anyone can pick them up for the price of a sub. Most recently they snubbed their best contributors over new contributors who produce images of similar quality and consequently offset has to compete with the best images on shutterstock. Shutterstock has not raised sub prices in 9 years. Key execs at shutterstock are completely aware that Image quality has raised considerably in that time and yet they have made no adjustments because they are strictly going after market share to our detriment. 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 one of microstocks most successful contributors at that timehttp://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402Here are Yuris 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]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821 Some of his thought on subs http://tinyurl.com/kveyd9q
489
« on: June 03, 2014, 15:20 »
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
Yuri is in this for Yuri. Not for us little people. Any changes to Istock will be for his own benefit because we know that the masses will never make more money there, whatever he does. Istock isn't going to take a 25 cent subscription and magically make it $25. Whatever they do, if anything will be fore the benefit of a small subset of people but you can be dang sure that Istock will keep 99% of their collection in the cheap seats or they will never compete with shutterstock.
If they are successful at making a cleaner, functional site, great, but that alone isn't going to bring back lost buyers. The ONLY way to create more mid stock pricing is to create mid stock collections, like vetta. That's been done already. So by focusing on mid stock, they leave out what shutterstock does so well.
For me my criticism of him is his manufactured statement to watch out shutterstock. That's what a press secretary says.
And the sites do this because we have allowed them to do so! Yuri is one the few photographers here that has actually and consistently tried to talk to the sites regarding the challenges we face. The rest of us just bend over and thank them for sticking it to us. We actually collectively praise sites who have not raised sub pricing in over 9 years!
490
« on: June 03, 2014, 14:50 »
I wonder how many of the folks who constantly bag on Yuri are still using his model releases, etc?
He is more proactive than most of us and we still find reason to criticize. At least he is trying to bring about positive change, for himself if not the rest of us. The micros need competition, monopolies have never proven to be positive for anyone.
491
« on: June 03, 2014, 14:12 »
One subscription sale today, probably the worst Wednesday since I started at Shutterstock.
Been getting worse and worse for the last year.
So much for opting out of the controversial schemes elsewhere to protect my Shutterstock sales.
When sales have completely dried up and you can no longer opt out, those frogs who did not jump out of the pot will realize it is too late. We are getting close to the dinner bell for frog soup!
492
« on: June 01, 2014, 11:05 »
You repost the same stuff so many times I don't bother reading your posts any more.
And you follow me around bagging on me in so many threads that I have lost all respect for you. Shall I return the favor?
493
« on: June 01, 2014, 10:13 »
Fees are below 50% because it's increasingly hard to sell images.
If it was so easy to sell online then try it out yourseld, build your own site, and see how much you're required to invest in advertising.
Microstock in particular is a cut-throat business, there's a good reason if SS is spending up to half of its earning in marketing and advertising.
If it's hard for the market leaders why it should be any easier for the average stock photographer ?
Shutterstock's (SSTK) CEO Jonathan Oringer on Q1 2014 Results - Earnings Call Transcript Snip Shifting to operating expenses for the first quarter, our gross margin was 60% as compared to 61% a year ago, and this reflects somewhat higher investment in content, customer support and our network and hosting infrastructure. It's important to note that contributor royalties, which make up approximately 28% of revenue and fall within the cost of goods line before gross margin, have remained consistent over many quarters. Sales and marketing expense was $19.3 million or 26% of revenue, in line with our expectations, and we continue to find cost-effective ways to increase our marketing spend, all while maintaining our customer acquisition economics. As we've noted for several quarters, we intend to reinvest incremental margin generated from faster revenue growth into additional sales and marketing efforts to maintain or even hopefully increase that growth rate where possible. The result of this strategy has been strengthening top line growth on a larger revenue base over the past several quarters. It is also important to note that we continue to expect approximately 100% of the revenue from existing customers in 2013 to recur again in 2014, as we have for several years. This trend is also true of both our video footage and enterprise customers. Recurring purchase behavior is fairly consistent across all of our product offerings. http://tinyurl.com/mw7pudh
494
« on: June 01, 2014, 09:56 »
I don't think you can know that this is true without having access to day to day expenses at sites like istock, dreamstime, shutterstock etc. There is one person who has had access to this type of information and we know what his views on this topic are because he was willing to share his take on the subject with us.
Based on this input I do think these sites have room to compensate us fairly.
According to Shutterstock's numbers in their reports, they wouldn't have enough money to pay contributors 50%. They'd have to adjust their budget.
CO's & CFO's can be remarkably creative, if you have ever worked in a public company it is interesting to be included in financial meetings leading up to audits and the release of quarterly SEC reports. Lets also remember that shutterstock has not raised it sub prices in 9 years with the publically stated intention of gaining market share. A strategy by the way, which has proven to be effective and consequentially detrimental to its competitors as well as it's contributors. One of the biggest problems I have with SS is that their growth strategy comes at the expense of it's contributors as well as the larger micro and macro markets. They have openly admited that as a growth strategy, they are undercutting the pricing of existing micro as well as existing and higher paying micro/macro image and enterprise markets. Snip Duck Swartz So whats changed in the marketplace thats giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?Timothy E. Bixby - CFO The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 yearsSo in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.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 thats 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/qcqszco
495
« on: June 01, 2014, 09:45 »
Down 30% on last year
496
« on: May 31, 2014, 13:43 »
With a 50% cut, there is plenty of money for good salaries and to properly market a product. Every photographer should know this and understand that if they get anything less than 50%, they're not being fairly paid.
I don't think there's any going back on this now. As much as I completely agree that anything less than 50% is getting ripped off, these big companies are so dependent on the systems they've built that you really couldn't flip a switch on royalties and bump everyone up to 50% without killing the company. I think the fair royalty has to be there from the beginning.
But it can work, even when a small company grows into big one. It just has to be a part of the company culture from day 1.
And when a company gets big it means that they need to have a few less quarter-million-dollar and half-million-dollar salaries, cut the bloat, operate a bit leaner. But it can be done.
All we can do now is make it a part of our contributor culture to never again accept less than 50%. Like I said in my original post, if some new company comes asking for my work, it's 50% or it's not going to happen. I'm not interested.
Maybe we're all complicit in the state of things today by accepting these poor deals years ago. But that doesn't mean that we have to keep repeating the same mistakes. There is still room for new blood in this business. None of these current companies are perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement. I actually think that adopting a 50% (or more) royalty for contributors right from the start is part of what will make a new company stronger than the competition. It's helped Stocksy attract talent that previously wouldn't work with these companies.
But even Stocksy isn't perfect. There are things they could do better (ahem.. *cough* illustration *cough* *cough*). Stocksy also isn't really even aimed at taking a shot at Shutterstock or iStock. They're more niche and it seems intentional.
Someone will get it completely right one day with a company that is equipped to take a shot at any of the big players, and that company is going turn this whole thing upside down and reboot it.
I don't think you can know that this is true without having access to day to day expenses at sites like istock, dreamstime, shutterstock etc. There is one person who has had access to this type of information and we know what his views on this topic are because he was willing to share his take on the subject with us. Based on this input I do think these sites have room to compensate us fairly.
497
« on: May 31, 2014, 11:42 »
It is nice to see that the sedate boiled frogs are starting to wake up enough to jump out of the pot.
We can now engage in conversations that will benefit our collective good. The me mentality will be the death of us, if we fail to address it.
Instead of fighting it is time to come together to discuss our long term welfare in this greed driven business model.
498
« on: May 30, 2014, 21:06 »
None of us has dealt with the day to day expenses of running a stock company. However Bruce Livingstone/IS ran a successful micro company for a number of years and he has the data and experience to give great advice regarding realistic and fair contributor royalty compensation. Here is what he had to say about the situation and you have give him a shout out for being honest with us. Snip Bruce Livingstone With a 50% cut, there is plenty of money for good salaries and to properly market a product. Every photographer should know this and understand that if they get anything less than 50%, they're not being fairly paid. I hope that photographers will demand more for their work. I hope that big agencies will wake up and realize they're lost without their artists and they need to do treat people better. I hope they focus on making a good product, not a good profit. The reality is that this situation is going to get worse before it gets better. Photographers will earn less and continue to compete in a sea of competition as the big stock houses load more and more bad stock images. http://tinyurl.com/o8ln76p
499
« on: May 30, 2014, 10:04 »
These exchanges between contributors and agency employees are always entertaining. For the agencies, I'm looking for the same thing everyday. Around 50% royalties and an RPI in the $5-$10 range. Wake me up when you get there, otherwise don't bother me with your deals.
If you continue sleeping they can only lower it even more.
Completely agree, though it is encouraging to see that many of micros slow cooked frogs do seem to be jumping out of the pot.
500
« on: May 30, 2014, 09:15 »
Businesses love to hide behind this "confidential" bit. Like "We can't tell you how much you're going to make, because we have a confidential deal with Getty".
When business is equitable you do not need to hide the details. The question is why does the partner feel the need for secrecy? I also wonder if another agency is involved in this deal.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
