|
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 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 64
601
« on: March 24, 2014, 12:03 »
can you put it a little bigger and "reder"?
Still did not get through did it! Entre Quotidienne ~ Soupe de Grenouille
602
« on: March 24, 2014, 11:45 »
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!
And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.
The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.
I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.
I don't agree, I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to the big picture and I agree with your key point.
SS has stated that they will not be raising prices and they have stated that they are doing this to capture market share. Every year our expenses go up and every year as SS grows; their growth strategy exerts yet more pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing their buyer packages.
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 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other.
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.
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://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
603
« on: March 24, 2014, 11:29 »
My word, this is not about not wanting a raise, this is about a Manhattan office. You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.
You are complaining your work isnt valued, but you value your own work when putting it on a sub site. You started out by getting 20 cents, and now you get 25 cents to 120 dollar.
If your work is that good, and high valued, how about applying to OFFSet?
I honestly dont see why you keep bringing it up, YOU devalue your own work.
Give it a rest. Here is Yuris favorite photo in his gallery in 2005. I think the bar has been raised a bit since then and you are talking apples to caviar. The discussion is not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison in the quality of 2005 image standards to those sold today.
What's your favorite picture in your gallery?
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402
And here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's new image quality bar.
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
Exactly and thats why you get up to 120 dollar these days.
You cant blame a sub site for being/staying a sub site. Its the business model they had from the start.
Jasmin asked a fair question, if they give you another level at 42 cents, or raised 38 to 42, would you be happy then? What kind of royalties would you like to see?
No however you CAN blame them for undercutting pricing to gain market share. You CAN blame them for self admittedly raising the content quality bar "dramatically" while keeping sub pricing stagnate for 9 years. I have posted this many times on the site. You have had many opportunities to read it and yet you ignore the in your face facts. It is absolutely clear to SSTK analyst that shutterstock has influenced the entire market by undercutting industry pricing for 10 years. Yet many contributors choose to ignore this fact and give shutterstock an industry pass. Jon and Key shutterstock stake holders openly admit that they know they can and should raise prices. But have intentionally been keeping sub pricing very low and intend to keep it very low to gain market share. You would have to be as blind as a bat, in severe denial or at the very least intentionally over looking these facts to not see or acknowledge this; while the founder of the company openly admits them to the world. Every year our expenses go up and every year as shutterstock grows; their growth strategy exerts greater pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing buyer subscription packages to compete with shutterstock. Until the majority of frogs wake up and are willing to jump out of the broth it is a moot point to talk about pricing. I have stated here on MSG that shutterstock no long gets my best images because they have not earned them. See below. It is clear that they intend on ringing every cent they can garner from our hides. The strategy is a kin to running a horse with no water or hay until he drops, lacking what he needs to move on. Snip (Maybe In Your Face Highlighted Red will get through but I highly doubt it) 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 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other. 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.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://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
604
« on: March 23, 2014, 19:41 »
Sure, quality has been raised many times over. Both the quality of the cameras and the of the shooters' imaginations and creativity. But also, ease of use of the technology has also improved. In all seriousness, my photo shoots take mere minutes including post. And I still make a decent return. Micro will always be the place for my images that take minimal effort. Unless you're seeing a decent return for your expense, why would you do it? That's just bad business. Take it someplace where the return is proportional to the expense. There are places for it.
We'd all like to make more money from our images, but I highly doubt that a public company will share any extra profit with suppliers, so the point about office space is kinda moot.
*edit - cobalt beat me to it and said it much better. 
They certainly will not give us a raise if we are perfectly happy to offer ourselves up as frog soup. As you can see I do not intend on letting them boil me and if more of us spoke out with our actions we would soon find that the micros would not be profitable without our investments. They could never afford to produce content themselves. Frog soup anyone?
605
« on: March 23, 2014, 19:23 »
Lisa you have always been a voice of reason, however I think you are missing my intended point entirely. I think it takes some serious b@11s to think that shutterstock contributors should shoulder the cost of content production without price of living adjustments. It also takes some serious b@11s for a profitable company to keep pricing stagnant for 9 years without raising prices so that shutterstock could gain market share.
If shutterstock wants to keep pricing low to gain market share, they should be the ones making the financial sacrifices, not us! And they could easily do that by making a few changes; as many companies who have far more revenue than shutterstock have done.
I do not begrudge the company nice office space, I do take issue with the choices they have made to take market share and profit at the expense of our assets. The point that seems to have gone over a few heads is that it would be a win win for everyone if shutterstock chose to reduce unnecessary expenses and moving to a more cost effective business location would be "one" way to do that.
I totally agree with everything you said above, and not for the first time . My only point of disagreement is concerning the city in which they are headquartered. I just don't think it's relevant. If anything, the idea they should move to a cheaper locale reminds me of all the companies that have been "offshoring" and the devastating effects that can have on the economies of developed areas. I think it's wrong of companies to take advantage of the infrastructures, advancements, and talent pool of an area, and then when they are successful, to take the wealth generated and go somewhere they can escape paying taxes and a decent wage.
So basically, I equate using contributors and then screwing them over with using a group of employees and a community and then screwing it over as two sides of the same greedy coin. I see Jon's loyalty to his hometown as a sign of ethical behavior.
My only other area of disagreement is the notion that any money saved by a relocation will EVER end up in contributor's pockets. SS is already more than profitable enough to give us a raise if they were so inclined, but I don't see that as likely when they are busy lining shareholder's pockets.
If a company completely moves out the area, I would tend to agree with you on the ethical level. My experience on that involves companies who stay in the area and expand or grow in more affordable location. They do not abandon ship but use their resources wisely moving forward as they become more successful. Obviously shutterstock should always have a presence in New York. By the way this is shutterstock's Denver office. Poor guys I think shutterstock could spring for better digs, for this hard working crew. 
606
« on: March 23, 2014, 19:03 »
My word, this is not about not wanting a raise, this is about a Manhattan office. You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.
You are complaining your work isnt valued, but you value your own work when putting it on a sub site. You started out by getting 20 cents, and now you get 25 cents to 120 dollar.
If your work is that good, and high valued, how about applying to OFFSet?
I honestly dont see why you keep bringing it up, YOU devalue your own work.
Give it a rest. Here is Yuris favorite photo in his gallery in 2005. I think the bar has been raised a bit since then and you are talking apples to caviar. The discussion is not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison in the quality of 2005 image standards to those sold today. 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=#56402And here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's new image quality bar. 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
607
« on: March 23, 2014, 17:37 »
You guys are doing a great job of coming up with reasons your hard work and investments should not be earning a fair return.
Congratulations you seem to be more than willing to give the sites a free pass to pay us less. Microstock is the only business model where you will find folks arguing against a raise. The microstock free pass phenomenon resembles a useful metaphor for a destructive type of human behaviour.
If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out.
However if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite happily. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death. An example of the smiling-boiled-frog phenomenon, is provided by our own business model. When we slipped into the microstock cauldron, the water was a perfect temperature, not too hot, not too cold. At that time we could actually make money from photos on our hard drives taken with inexpensive point and shoot cameras ~ sans studio equipment.
As the water in the cauldron slowly heated and microstock prices stayed stagnant or dropped; we frogs needed to pay for and produce far more content at much higher quality to compete. Our production expenses have gone up without commensurate compensation; yet we feel nothing but a pleasant warmth, and indeed in the beginning that's all there was to feel.
A long time has to pass before the water begins to be dangerously hot, and this is especially true for sites which offer carrots in the form of longer new contributor bumps. For fully half of our microstock history, the signs of distress were less noticeable. The period was a productive time for us and centered around creativity, personal income and community building. But gradually, imperceptibly, signs of distress began to appear, like tiny bubbles at the bottom of a pot.
If we take off our blinders we can perceive the signs of stress and see that the fire that was fervently burning under the cauldron. It's been burning there since the beginning, was burning after 10+ years and is burning today in exactly the same way it has been the last 8 years. Microstock was and is the great heating element for the crowd sourced revolution and unless we step up to protect our interests; the only winners will be the wall street robber barons.
So yes lets offer them more free passes and ignore the fact that the water is scalding hot & the fire is burning under the cauldron. Lets just mop our brows, grind our teeth, produce more at greater quality and cost to our bottom lines. Let us give up on our work and our passion and say there is nothing we can do about it "It Is All Good, Isn't It Great"
I have said more than my fair share on the topic. We have not had a raise in since 2008. Feel free to give the sites a pass and argue on about why we do not deserve fair compensation for our work. I will put a fork in it for now!
608
« on: March 23, 2014, 15:07 »
Many agencies are offering files "from 15 cents" to customers, but still pay out a regular subs royalty to their artists. This is possible because the average customer never maximises their download option. This has been the case since subscription sites started, so I really dont understand what is new about that. It is an over 10 year old phenomenon.
Getty/istock are the ones that pay out 0.001 cent with their connect program, now offer 35 million expensive files for free and have just announced a subs program that is much lower than all the other sites.
They also kicked their exclusives badly, first they take away their option to send content to PP where they would have received 42-46 cents citing "we only want to offer our exclusive artists upstream options" but then they bring the subs to istock with a subs royalty that is even lower then what SS pays out for indie content.
And the exclusives never produced that content for the subs market. They have absolutely no choice.
So if you want to worry about low subs royalties, I would suggest we all return to the istock thread about subs. Because that is the place where everyones income will be dropping soon - for both exclusives and the indies.
If they aggressively market their subs program we are all guaranteed to lose money. And the exclusives will be hit hardest.
And they are doing this in response to?  Even the wall street SSTK analyst can see why this has been happening. If the analyst can ask hard questions of SSTK when we have more invested; then why do we have such a hard time recognizing market cause and effect in action?
609
« on: March 23, 2014, 15:01 »
I am anything but fine with the sales drops that I and other mature portfolios are seeing on SS. Do I for one second think that is a result of their office location? Nope. The sites located in backwaters" less cosmopolitan areas" are making me, and most of us LESS!
But really, all that is totally beside the point. I just think it takes some serious b@11s to think that selling a few k images through a website entitles any of us to dictate where the owners and employees have to live. Unbelievable, really.
Lisa you have always been a voice of reason, however I think you are missing my intended point entirely. I think it takes some serious b@11s to think that shutterstock contributors should shoulder the cost of content production without price of living adjustments. It also takes some serious b@11s for a profitable company to keep pricing stagnant for 9 years without raising prices so that shutterstock could gain market share.
If shutterstock wants to keep pricing low to gain market share, they should be the ones making the financial sacrifices, not us! And they could easily do that by making a few changes; as many companies who have far more revenue than shutterstock have done.
I do not begrudge the company nice office space, I do take issue with the choices they have made to take market share and profit at the expense of our assets. The point that seems to have gone over a few heads is that it would be a win win for everyone if shutterstock chose to reduce unnecessary expenses and moving to a more cost effective business location would be "one" way to do that.
You are a true Brain Washed Liberal aren't you?
I bet you are for the NoBama Minimum Wage raising issue aren't you? How about the Mandatory Health Care Fiasco?
I can only imagine you are serious about "Spreading the wealth"
LOL!
Go start your own business from nothing, build it up with your hard work into something substantial, then see how you feel when some Whining Little School Girl cries that its "not fair" that someone is making more money they he is!
Oh the humanity.
Again take control over your own actions instead of waiting for someone to rescue you and make it fair for you because you say so.
Geesh
Mike carry on pimping pink flea stained pooches and gushing hyperbole about your earnings and profitable new business. You may be fooling yourself but very few of us buy your schtick.
610
« on: March 23, 2014, 14:33 »
It is really not difficult to understand that if shutterstock/bigstock charges customers .16 cents per images or even less for teams subscripts there will be less $$$$$$ to contribute toward contributor royalties. How low is too low for you guys? Will .000001 cents be too low? That is where we are headed.
Again, it hasn't happened, so why is this an issue for you? They have consistently kept commissions from decreasing at Shutterstock (I don't contribute to bigstock).
Are you fine with the relatively recent .16 cents then?
611
« on: March 23, 2014, 14:29 »
I am anything but fine with the sales drops that I and other mature portfolios are seeing on SS. Do I for one second think that is a result of their office location? Nope. The sites located in backwaters" less cosmopolitan areas" are making me, and most of us LESS!
But really, all that is totally beside the point. I just think it takes some serious b@11s to think that selling a few k images through a website entitles any of us to dictate where the owners and employees have to live. Unbelievable, really.
Lisa you have always been a voice of reason, however I think you are missing my intended point entirely. I think it takes some serious b@11s to think that shutterstock contributors should shoulder the cost of content production without price of living adjustments. It also takes some serious b@11s for a profitable company to keep pricing stagnant for 9 years without raising prices so that shutterstock could gain market share. If shutterstock wants to keep pricing low to gain market share, they should be the ones making the financial sacrifices, not us! And they could easily do that by making a few changes; as many companies who have far more revenue than shutterstock have done. I do not begrudge the company nice office space, I do take issue with the choices they have made to take market share and profit at the expense of our assets. The point that seems to have gone over a few heads is that it would be a win win for everyone if shutterstock chose to reduce unnecessary expenses and moving to a more cost effective business location would be "one" way to do that.
612
« on: March 23, 2014, 14:11 »
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
I am sure shutterstock will be happy with your response. With so many of us willing to give them passes, it is no wonder they are charging as low as .16 cents per file to sell our images. If we do not value our own assets it is clear shutterstock will not either.
The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success. I am not fine with the recent drops for older contributors and you should not be either, none of us are new for ever.
I'm not getting the 16 thing either, to be honest. This year Shutterstock has blown past iStock in the average amount I earn per DL. So one company being located in Calgary has not helped me earn more the other being located in New York.
And to show a map where WalMart dominates in terms of profits...if you think Shutterstock is bad, then WalMart is evil incarnate. Talk about profiting at the expense of your employeesthe Waltons are the richest family in the world, and they got there by putting local businesses out of business and paying their employees subsistence wages. Being based in Arkansas hasn't helped their employees any.
It is really not difficult to understand that if shutterstock/bigstock charges customers .16 cents per image or even less for team subscriptions there will be less $$$$$$ to contribute toward contributor royalties. How low is too low for you guys? Will .000001 cents be too low? That is where we are headed.
613
« on: March 23, 2014, 13:55 »
Like I said, I just choose not to care about this silly upheaval about their office. You will hear me speak up when there is an issue I think it is worth it. I have taken plenty of action when I dont like what an agency is doing, and I speak with my images, by removing them. I have dropped PD, BS, DP, DT, Alamy and a few are on the watchlist such as FT and PD. Shutterstock is not on my list, thats all.
Note: Shutterstock also sells files for as high as 360 dollar (no not OFFset). If you focus on the 16 cent, I will focus on the other stuff.
I also have positives to share about shutterstock, however with so many focusing on the positives I feel talking about those is a moot point. Until that trend changes, I will focus on the challenges
614
« on: March 23, 2014, 09:45 »
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
I am sure shutterstock will be happy with your response. With so many of us willing to give them passes, it is no wonder they are charging as low as .16 cents per file to sell our images. If we do not value our own assets it is clear shutterstock will not either. The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success. I am not fine with the recent drops for older contributors and you should not be either, none of us are new for ever.
615
« on: March 23, 2014, 09:26 »
This has been going on for a few years now. The question is, will we continue to discount these issues or will we step up to the plate and demand they address them.
Shutterstock gets more free passes than any company I am aware of.
616
« on: March 23, 2014, 09:13 »
To be honest, I've got more important things to worry about....and I find it bewildering that some of the posters here who moan about declining sales in numerous threads have the time to research and post reams of this stuff that they cannot influence or change. What a waste of precious time.
Just like you taking your precious time to read the thread and post about them wasting their precious time.
I have already gathered this info and more while earning a living wage outside of stock. As we all know our passions are not always the ones which pay the bills. That is especially true after SS flipped the switch on our files last March. For all the posturing about the vibrancy and advantages of New York. One would think that the millions of people living there would be able to generate more Fortune 500 companies which produced higher revenue. Some of us work for smart companies who do research such things and that information is used to drive and generate greater profit for the company! You can see this in the revenue bumps on the maps I offered. One thing I have found in life, is that if you ask questions and use your head the world is never as simple as it appears.
617
« on: March 22, 2014, 23:44 »
Snip
New York is an attractive city to live in inspite of the high prices. If you want to attract young, creative high quality people...London, New York, Zurich are much more attractive than the middle of nowhere.
Who wants to live in a boring suburb or country town if you can be in a vibrant metropolis??
Snip
Where do you want to receive the next fortune 500 marketing managers for multi million dollar contracts? In a small town industrial region or in NEW YORK?
In reality there are greater numbers of Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies outside of New York. Austin and other non industrial locations are home to the majority of the Fortune 500 companies. In those locations you will find young, creative, high quality people who are more than happy living outside of London, New York and Zurich. They may even find a few interesting things to do outside of the Apple. While New York is a nice place to visit, I will pass on the nasty dose of air pollution that the city has to offer. Vibrancy is difficult when you are fighting crowds, chocking on smog and working 24/7 to pay your bills. http://tinyurl.com/k5y5h75Topographical Map Of The U.S. Based On Revenues Of Fortune 500 Companies Topographical map of United States Population Density
618
« on: March 22, 2014, 11:40 »
Shelma we can agree to disagree. You have ties to the area while I do not and we are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours thou I do not agree with it.
I still belive that considering shutterstocks revenue; 13 million plus in one year is excessive spend for office space. There are are plenty of large companies in cheaper areas than Manhattan who agree with me and are relocating to better business environments http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q
In many cases it is not difficult for employees to understand that they would have a higher standard of life elsewhere. http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr
It is not hard to understand Manhattan's lack of engineering talent when housing costs 444% more than other nice areas which offer a greater number high tech jobs. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nations 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.
LOL. You're one step away from printing up the "Make Shutterstock Weird" t-shirts and bumper stickers. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird
LOL Burning Flipside would never be the same
619
« on: March 22, 2014, 11:13 »
Once again thank you for paying attention to business and sharing what you found.
620
« on: March 22, 2014, 11:11 »
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
621
« on: March 21, 2014, 16:28 »
Shelma we can agree to disagree. You have ties to the area while I do not and we are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours thou I do not agree with it. I still belive that considering shutterstocks revenue; 13 million plus in one year is excessive spend for office space. There are are plenty of large companies in cheaper areas than Manhattan who agree with me and are relocating to better business environments http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q In many cases it is not difficult for employees to understand that they would have a higher standard of life elsewhere. http://tinyurl.com/palnxzrIt is not hard to understand Manhattan's lack of engineering talent when housing costs 444% more than other nice areas which offer a greater number high tech jobs. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nations 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.
622
« on: March 20, 2014, 21:45 »
I know some of you consider Shutterstock a "tech" company, but from my POV they're an "art" company. (Or a blend of both.) They license art to advertising agencies, design firms and publishers, and many of those businesses are based in New York. Oringer is from New York, and I'm guessing the majority of his NY employees are from the NY area as well. Why would you expect him (and them) to move away from family, friends, job, the place they grew up and went to school and started the business, to move somewhere elseif being in NY works for this business?
This all seems to stem from the photos of their "cool" new space. Again from my POV, having working in ad agencies in Manhattan for most of my career, the space looks pretty much like every other ad agency/design firm/production house in the city, just a lot smaller. (Some ad agencies take up entire buildings and have tens of thousands of employees.) It just blends in with its target market. And they're centrally located near Grand Central and Penn Station, so it's a relatively easy commute, in Manhattan terms. How much money could moving possibly save them, when you compare it to their annual sales? And ho much more difficult would it be to land the big new clients who are giving us all those nice SODs?
1. We forget that shutterstock does not produce any of the assets that they earn their livelihood from. They would not have any product to sell if we did not use our own funds to pay for and produce that content. We pay shutterstock to represent our assets and with that comes responsibility to the contributors as a whole to maintain the value of those assets. 2. I might agree with you if shutterstock charged anything near the prices that Manhattan ad agencies, design firm and production houses charge. Instead shutters charge as low as .16 cents per image for assets they did not pay for or produce themselves. They have not given contributors a raise in over 8 years yet they expect us to completely shoulder the increased production and business expenses we have seen each of those 8 or 9 years. 3. They expect to be able to capture market shared by driving the value of our assets down while paying for the most expensive office space, tax's, employee and company expenses in the United States. In the mean time our income on shutterstock has less purchasing power and we are starting to see producers like Yuri move to less expensive countries so that they can compete while shutterstock makes no effort to protect the value of our assets or to offer a fair living profit from our work. 4. Based on sudden drops in income more and more contributors are starting to believe that their work is getting less exposure while shutterstock uses skill feed, the Istock backlash and advertising to bring in larger quantities of images from new contributors who for a time will earn less in royalties. http://tinyurl.com/nkmkgwn 5. The long term price undercutting that shutterstock has purposely carried out to gain market share has develued our assets and affected the entire industry. Not just shutterstock contributors. Mike did a great job of putting the inequity of the situation into words regarding the search changes. "The change was very abrupt and since that change things haven't got back to what once were. It is true there is more competition, more files, etc., but those things didn't changed from one day to another. It's not "old vs new" ports, it's not trying to intimidate anyone or being jealous of the success of anyone. Is just being objective and calling things what they are. Yes, there are some contributors doing well and seeing monthly increases in their Shutterstock's earnings with their new uploads, but does that means things are alright? I think there's a chance if it wasn't for that big change that took place last year they would do even better with their current ports. Also, this is not about being negative. We could say "there's nothing we can do but keep uploading" and stop talking about it, but that's like saying "we're ok with everything here". We don't have to remain silent about things we find unfair, and frankly I don't want everybody to think "everything's alright at Shutterstock, all contributors are happy" because that isn't true."
623
« on: March 20, 2014, 17:49 »
How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.
I am sure the rest of the smaller micros are happy to see these developments. Maybe we should encourage shutterstock to spend more cash, it will give competitors a chance to do the opposite. If I were a competitor I would be relived they are taking this tact.
Unless shutterstock is only in this for the short term and they intend on driving prices to the ground for everyone. If that is the case, it does not really matter what any micro does long term. Key shutterstock stake holders will know when to grab the money and run by cashing out when they feel they hit the SSTK ceiling.
Taking what tack? They've always been based in NY, I think. They moved from one building to another. They made the new place work for their needs.
I think he meant the tactic of unnecessarily spending money that could be invested back into the business if they relocated for the future. They probably have to pay their programmers and other employees twice as much as they would if they moved to a different location. Not to mention no state income tax in places like Florida and Texas. I definitely don't know all the ends and outs, but I can see his point.
Well said, this article hits some of the high points you mentioned. The Surprising Cities Creating The Most Tech JobsSnip http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/11/20/the-surprising-cities-creating-the-most-tech-jobs/To determine the metro areas that are generating the most tech jobs, Praxis Strategy Group examined employment data in two different categories. Half our ranking is based on changes in employment at companies in high-technology industries, such as software and engineering. Half is based on changes in the number of workers classified as being in STEM occupations, which captures tech workers who are employed in industries not primarily associated with technology, such as finance or business services. We ranked the 52 largest U.S. metropolitan statistical areas by the growth in tech employment from 2001 to 2013, as well as for their more near-term growth from 2010 to 2013 to give credit for current momentum.We analyze job creation trends in the nations 52 largest metropolitan areas from 2001 to 2013, a period that extends from the bust of the last tech expansion to the flowering of the current one. We looked at employment in the industries we normally associate with technology, such as software, engineering and computer programming services.The four metro areas that have generated tech jobs at the fastest pace over the past 12 years are far outside the Bay Area, in the southern half of the country, in places with lower costs of living and generally friendly business climates. In first place: Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas, where tech companies have expanded employment by 41% since 2001 and the number of STEM workers has risen by 17% over the same period. Looking at the near-term, 2010-13, the Austin metro area also ranks first in the nation. The keys to Austins success lies largely in its affordability and high quality of life, both in its small urban core and rapidly expanding suburbs. Best known as the hometown of Dell, a host of West Coast tech titans have set up shop there in recent years, including AMD, IBM, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Oracle.Conversely Most large urban centers have not done particularly well in technology over the past decade. None of the three largest metro areas in the country New York, Los Angeles and Chicago made it into the top half of our rankings. New York, where any two nerds in a room can expect gushing media attention, clocks in at 36th. Some locals claim the city is now second to the Silicon Valley in tech, but that is widely off the mark. Since 2001, Gothams tech industry growth has been a paltry 6% while the number of STEM related jobs has fallen 4%. The chances of Gotham becoming a major tech center are handicapped not only by high costs and taxes, but a distinct lack of engineering talent. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nations 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.This means that tech growth is likely to be limited largely to areas like new media, which will be hard-pressed to replace jobs lost in more traditional information industries. Since 2001 newspaper publishing has lost almost 200,000 jobs nationwide, or 45% of its total, while employment at periodicals has dropped 51,000,or 30%, and book publishing, an industry overwhelmingly concentrated in New York, has lost 17,000 jobs, or 20% of its total. The prospects for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (38th) and Chicago-Joliet-Naperville (42nd) seem no better. Due in large part to the continuing shrinkage of its aerospace sector, the number of STEM jobs in the L.A. area is down 6.3% since 2001though tech industry employment has grown a modest 12%. For its part, Chicago has experience significant decline in both tech employment and STEM jobs over the past 12 years.
624
« on: March 20, 2014, 15:44 »
How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.
I am sure the rest of the smaller micros are happy to see these developments. Maybe we should encourage shutterstock to spend more cash, it will give competitors a chance to do the opposite. If I were a competitor I would be relived they are taking this tact. Unless shutterstock is only in this for the short term and they intend on driving prices to the ground for everyone. If that is the case, it does not really matter what any micro does long term. Key shutterstock stake holders will know when to grab the money and run by cashing out when they feel they hit the SSTK ceiling.
625
« on: March 20, 2014, 15:24 »
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.
What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.
Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.
Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term?
I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices and we can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere.
I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space with less money than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602
Are you suggesting that Shutterstock should fire 300 employees and hire 300 new staff elsewhere? I figured from your comments on your dads fortune 500 company you were more social than that. Now I think laying off 300 staff to reduce cost so you can earn more seems okay in your book.
It is a fortune 200 company and they have moved employees, when making strategic changes. They did not fire employees but paid all relocation expenses for those who understood that there was more opportunity at the new location for company and employee growth. The employees that did not want to move, stayed at the old office location which became a smaller regional office.
Thats not what I asked.
No I do not think they should fire employees. Business is rarely either or. Instead of moving to a new location, hiring more people and spending 10 million plus on tenant improvements & 3 million annual rent. They could have left the existing smaller office in place to serve clients in New York and also use that small location to house a sales team focused on the area. Going forward it would have been far more cost effective to move strategic parts of the company to a location which provided increased access to great employees as well as lower business and living expenses. Most high level executives travel between the main corporate office and regional offices. Jon already has a helicopter for travel Most large companies have their own fleet of planes for this purpose and spend time between offices. Instead of spending millions needlessly and having trouble procuring and paying the tech people they need to grow. A more strategic and cost effective strategy would have offered a competitive advantage for shutterstock while freeing up resources they could utilize to grow the business, increase royalties and maintain a fairer relationship with contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
