|
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 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 64
951
« on: July 25, 2013, 21:28 »
...It isn't envy. It's realization that previous actions were only done for a certain reason. It's anger at misplaced trust and lack of concern for the community at large. Of course, you know what happens when you try to effect change  .
I don't think anyone here is under any obligation to the community at large. Yuri is free to move on to whatever pastures he likes, owing us nothing in return. We all have the same deal here. We contribute to this microstock thing while we're here, adding our own voice and skill to the mix, and we owe nothing to anyone if/when we leave.
I just think it's unfortunate the way in which he's chosen to make his exit. He's not so much leaving us behind as he is just doing something different while mocking what he was doing previously. It's like proudly driving around in an Audi for years and then getting a Lexus and swinging by the Audi dealership to mock Audis, Audi owners, dealers, salesmen, mechanics, etc.
I see it more as leaving because of unfair and or deceptive business practices. The sites view doing business with us as a one way street, they expect us to produce at higher and higher standards without fair compensation for an increasingly superior product. What is wrong with saying that the Audi's service package was not up to snuff, he tried to negotiate better terms and service with the auto dealer and they ignored his needs. Therefor he decided to part ways and is simply sharing why he felt the need to do this. There are sites all over the net offering customer feedback on cars, what is so wrong with discussing dissatisfaction with a business partner which fell short in fulfilling their side of the business arrangement. That said I fear he may be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire in regards to IS/Getty
952
« on: July 25, 2013, 20:10 »
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
You are making assumptions without knowing what went on in the meetings or how those involved conducted themselves.
It is not the artist who dictated what the sites would accept or what they paid. Micro sites have continued to raise the quality bar and dictate buyer expectations without compensating content providers for those drastic and prolonged changes. Case in point, just look at the vast majority of ports for those who have been at this awhile. Ask yourself if the content or the tools and expendables used to produce it have changed.
I can't really believe how many people are taking it up for those who are perfectly willing to drive the price of our assets down in the race to gain market share. You can count on the fact that if they had paid to produce OUR content themselves they would be far more diligent in guarding it's value.
Why are so many willing to take it up for and defend the sites who have a long track record of frequently changing the rules and the contracts that we signed up for when we started this journey?
Who said I was not in those meetings?
My point was that you were at those meeting and we do not have enough information to comment on the conduct or the professionalism of the micro site owners because we were not there. At least you tried to negotiate better terms for your content, which is far more than the majority of us have done. It is long past time for a price adjustment for HCV content.
953
« on: July 25, 2013, 17:42 »
I like your thoughts. I really don't see it the way you do and I don't think you understand the business that we (our images) have created. Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.
No, I don't think it's optimal. I agree with you, there is a problem in this business when it comes to pricing and pay rates.
My issue with you isn't about the business. This business has been the way it is for a long time now, and it was upon that flawed business model that you made a pretty nice pile of money. You want to leave and move on, that's perfectly fine. But I think you're doing it poorly, and frankly you're acting like a child in the process.
So these other companies wouldn't change what they've been doing just because you hopped on a plane and came knocking. That, to you, means that they aren't professionals? They seemed awfully professional enough when you were cashing those big checks.
I just think it's pretty lame that you had no problem playing this game for years when the rules suited you, and now that you have tried to change the rules and you've moved on to something else when it didn't work, it's open season on mocking everyone who is still in this. All while proclaiming yourself the most important thing in microstock and your leaving being the most significant event in microstock history. Surely you don't really believe that, do you?
You are making assumptions without knowing what went on in the meetings or how those involved conducted themselves. It is not the artist who dictated what the sites would accept or what they paid. Micro sites have continued to raise the quality bar and dictate buyer expectations without compensating content providers for those drastic and prolonged changes. Case in point, just look at the vast majority of ports for those who have been at this awhile. Ask yourself if the content or the tools and expendables used to produce it have changed. I can't really believe how many people are taking it up for those who are perfectly willing to drive the price of our assets down in the race to gain market share. You can count on the fact that if they had paid to produce OUR content themselves they would be far more diligent in guarding it's value. Why are so many willing to take it up for and defend the sites who have a long track record of frequently changing the rules and the contracts that we signed up for when we started this journey?
954
« on: July 25, 2013, 15:09 »
40% marketing hype / 60% rings true
Yuri was able to swing this deal because he built a functional site and the micros knew that he and other's like him could start a bleed on market share. Frankly, I think they feared that he could successfully start a cooperative site.
Like it or not his site is extremely functional and he built it with the customer in mind.
"The main objective is to address the customer feedback I have collected over the years and create ingenious solutions to the problems they revealed. Problems such as how do I find a normal looking person and not overly model looking is solved by our looks selector in the model sidebar. If you come from Denmark for example, it is now possible to see what images other people from Denmark think look Danish, by using our country selector. You can drag and drop images into collections and collectively share and discus them with your colleagues in a chat room like environment by clicking the lightbox. You can save searches you do a lot, you can create alerts for when new images arrive matching things you are interested in. You can request custom retouching on images to extend them, find that extra copy space and get it back in just hours, and as the only site in the world you can get all files in a PNG (transparent background) format. Notice that from all of the above mentioned features, there is not one site in the world that has ANY of these features. Not one. Furthermore, by cutting out the middleman we can keep the same prices but provide a whole new level of service."
I am going to over look the marketing hype and spelling errors. I would be willing to bet that more than a few shooter out there find themselves in the following position. Great for the micros and buyers but not so great for the content providers. How do you spell unsustainable again?
"I would estimate that for the last three years I tried very hard to convince myself that microstock was in fact the right place for the professional photographer. After all, my photography carrier was born here. Perhaps exactly because of that, I tried so hard to disregard a growing mismatch between microstock and myself, in product refinement, sophistication and budget. As you grow in skills, as your company grows, our distribution partners in microstock did not. Some agencies where ok, but in total, as a mass and as a workplace, the picture was not nice. Sometimes it felt like having a michelin restaurant inside a burger joint and at the same time having to match the prices. At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menues at 0300AM at burger prices."
955
« on: July 25, 2013, 12:23 »
Why Symbiostock will make a dent in the Stock Photo marketplace eventually. Open Source - user driven.
If SS is saving 90% of their costs by going open source, maybe that's just more of an indication why the company is a success. Frugal and Community based.
Interesting article = thanks.
They forgot to mention that thou they use open source code they fail to take advantage of utilizing that large base of free coders by upgrading their own site when that open source community offers security and capability updates free of charge. SS just updated their server software last week to 2.2.15 from Apache 1.3.34 which reached end of life status in 2010. 2.2.15 is still a few releases back, they could have gone to 2.2.25 if they did not want to deal with new release bugs for 2.4.6 Apache 1.3 is so old they do not even mention it on the Apache site any longer. http://httpd.apache.org/They should update based on security risks alone. The fact that they do not keep up to date, tells me that they are too cheap to update the rest of their code. That is what the 70% plus we are donating to the cause gets us. MySQL enables databases to scale horizontally on low cost, commodity hardware to serve read and write-intensive workloads, but if you fail to keep your system current and up to date you will see the type of bugs submitters have been dealing with for the last 5 years. I would say that is nothing to brag about, but the article makes good PR marketing hype for those who do not understand it. The one thing about Symbiostock is that is gives its base more control. It will be powered by the very people who have the most to win or lose.
956
« on: July 24, 2013, 14:14 »
... we ought to come up with some zingy term that expresses our frustration with the way they currently control the market and exploit creative producers.
Parasites?
LOL Exploitative Greedy Blood * Parasites
957
« on: July 24, 2013, 14:12 »
It's even worse. I suppose that Walmart's suppliers agree the price in advance and it's not changed unless both parties agree.
If it would be same - the only way how Wallmart's supplier could protect himself would be going fast to store, taking his products out of shelfs and running away.
But yes - they are definitely not agents.
And the suppliers are paid on delivery for each and every product.
958
« on: July 22, 2013, 10:24 »
You give a load of negative to someone else's project after they have put months and months of free work to help other people into that project and then come here to ask people here to do your work for you?
Cheeky
959
« on: July 21, 2013, 17:06 »
They stated that they were making a system upgrade.
The last time they were down and I checked they were running Apache/1.3.34 which reached end of life status in 2010
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request POST /upload.mhtml.
Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Connection refused --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.34 Server
Today when I checked it looks like they have updated to Apache/2.2.15
In my book that is good news, still an older release but an improvement. They must have reason for not updating to the latest release Apache 2.4.6
960
« on: July 19, 2013, 21:32 »
Maintenance on Shutterstock today, the RC schedule might come sooner than we think
Lets hope that is not the case.
961
« on: July 18, 2013, 05:37 »
Well they killed our best selling images, new images are not selling and they are adding more crap everyday to bury the content which is still selling. With these diminishing returns there is nothing left to lose.
Someone is getting more sales? Shutterstock grew over 40% in 2012? 1st quarter was slower, only 4% growth over 4th quarter 2012.
How does that include killing best sellers, new images don't sell, and burying content. There seems to be something wrong with the assumption that sales are down, when in fact they are up? Maybe not for people here, but someone is making all that money and all those downloads? If it's someone new, then, new uploads ARE selling.
Who is getting all the sales increase, when the complaints here say, everything is upside down and losing?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1545712-shutterstock-valuation-makes-me-shudder
I just went to have a look at what is filling some of the spots where i have been displaced to the nether regions. A simple look at one category which contains 40665 pages showed that at a good many of those spots on the first 2 pages had been replaced with "inspired" images from submitters who had been Member's since 2012 and 2011. I have quite a few friends who had large numbers of images that "earned" their way to first page popular searches. Everyone of them have been hit hard, the more they had the worse the hit has been on monthly returns.
962
« on: July 17, 2013, 22:25 »
When Yuri was on shutterstock, it said his location was South Africa. I'm wondering if he incorporated his business there to avoid taxes? Since he is from Denmark, I suspect it would be too expensive to run a profitable company there because of labor costs. In fact, when I look at where the big time contributors are (like 50,000-250,000) they are usually from Estonia or South Africa, etc. I've never seen a big time contributor in the U.S. Is it because the costs are so prohibitive? I imagine just finding someone to help retouch could cost $20/hr in the U.S. I wonder if you wanted to really scale up, would you have to be in a country where labor costs are super cheap or could you somehow do it in the U.S.? Anyone have any thoughts?
Re Tax's You could always hire SS's early accounting firm. "As a result of our Reorganization, we are subject to entity-level taxation, which will result in significantly greater income tax expense than we have incurred historically. Prior to our Reorganization, we operated as a New York limited liability company. As a limited
liability company, we recognized no federal and state income taxes, as the members of the LLC, and not the entity itself, were subject to income tax on their allocated share of our earnings. On October 5, 2012, we reorganized as a Delaware corporation. Consequently, we are currently subject to entity-level taxation even though historically Shutterstock Images LLC did not pay U.S. federal or state income taxes. As a result, our corporate income tax rate will increase significantly as we are now subject to federal, state and city income taxes. Page 29 SS 2012 Annual Report"
963
« on: July 17, 2013, 14:52 »
I am as small potato as you get at this game. But to me, I would think that this forum would be a really good place for a power shift to begin. Organize a walk-out. As long as the agencies have the free inventory which we provide, then they have the power. Imagine if thousands of contributors pulled the plug on their portfolios, all over the world. In a viral world, it can be done.
This has been coming on for a few years now. I think I've had it with stock altogether. The relationships with these agencies is abysmal. In the last 2 years I have had my commissions cut by iStock twice, and now with the new pricing program I barely make 50 cents per download. Bigstock turned most of my on demand sales into very low paying subs, and 123RF made a similar move. Fotolia made so many anti-contributor moves that I removed my portfolio 18 months ago and haven't considered ever doing business with them again.
Who's next? SS? DT? Should I even care?
On one hand I could keep my ports up and let the money continue to flow in at a reduced rate every month as commissions keep getting slashed. But I'm pretty much getting raped every month. I don't see the agencies I supply images to working hard enough on my behalf to justify keeping 70%, 80% or more of the profit.
Sure this is just a rant, but I'm pretty serious about it. My heart isn't in it. I feel like I'm getting swindled. I certainly can't say I enjoy "shooting stock." So maybe it is time to just be done with it and let somebody else take the abuse.
A lot of people told me a few years ago, "Just walk away from it for a while." Well I did. From January until April of this year, I barely ever checked my sales. Stopped shooting stock altogether. Only made a few posts here. Then I came back after spring and made one last go of it, and I realize now that I simply detest most of these agencies and don't find anything about stock to be interesting or enjoyable. And the commission cuts just keep coming, and coming.
Thoughts? Anyone feel the same?
Well they killed our best selling images, new images are not selling and they are adding more crap everyday to bury the content which is still selling. With these diminishing returns there is nothing left to lose. Time to spend my time on something far more productive. I will continue to buy and support the sites who pay a fair royalty's to contributors, but for now I am done uploading content which only has the potential to make the greedy sites richer at our expense.
964
« on: July 14, 2013, 13:37 »
I admire such poor searching skills really
Shouldn't you leave it up to the person who owns the port to post a link to their content themselves?
965
« on: July 14, 2013, 12:54 »
I liked this part:
"The biggest problem for the company may lie in the fact that it generated a gross margin of over 61% during Q1 2013. This shows that the business model is lucrative, but also shows that there are plenty of additional profits that could be distributed to contributors should a competitor decide to get aggressive in its pricing. If company XYZ is willing to pay double to its contributors what Shutterstock is willing to pay, and can scale into the same size of business with the same amount of customers, which platform do you think contributors would choose? "
The writer is pointing out what many of us already know, which is that SS is basically a middleman making a killing, and could in fact be paying contributors much more - it just hasn't been necessary.
The writer doesn't even begin to understand our industry. If you read the next line after the one you have quoted (somewhat out of context) it becomes obvious. He doesn't realise that SS contributors are not exclusive and, in fact, already have their content on SS's existing competitors.
I think he is correct in that SS is currently over-valued, but not actually for all the reasons he has assumed. Facebook, for example, is way more over-valued than SS on any metric you care to name ... but still the market sustains a ludicrous price.
Good point if we started pulling our content off sites that gouge us they would be forced to pay fair royalties.
A good place to start removing content would be BS.
bigstock pays better than sutterstock but probably not for much longer.
I agree, they put bridge to BS in place so that they could push direct sales efforts for large enterprises to BS thereby increasing Revenue per download. Snip Finally, as our third area of strategic focus we continue to expand our direct sales effort to large enterprises. As you may recall, over 70% of Fortune 500 companies already have at least one Shutterstock user account. However, the amount that these companies are spending with us is still just a small fraction of their overall spend. Our direct sales team continued to make impressive progress in Q4, closing key master service agreements with large agencies and publishers and steadily growing direct sales revenue. Were excited about the progress we have made with large enterprises during the quarter and look forward to expanding our relationship with these larger companies over time.Snip Our direct sales team continued a strong trajectory, delivering a record quarter. Direct sales continues to be one of the fastest growing areas of our business. Were especially pleased with our large agency sales which are gaining promising momentum, and in the quarter we continued to add sales personnel in key markets. In the US we added new hires in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.Snip Revenue per download also showed a nice increase, increasing 7% to $2.30 as compared to $2.14 in the same period a year ago. This increase in revenue per download as in past quarters continues to be driven by the mix of pricing plans that our customers select. We have a higher effective cost per download in certain pricing plans, particularly our direct sales efforts to larger customers and our on-demand plans both of which are growing faster than the overall business, and that has continued to cause the average revenue per download to increase over time. Note that we have not raised prices for several years and that this shift is due solely to mix shift. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1214061-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
966
« on: July 13, 2013, 16:17 »
I liked this part:
"The biggest problem for the company may lie in the fact that it generated a gross margin of over 61% during Q1 2013. This shows that the business model is lucrative, but also shows that there are plenty of additional profits that could be distributed to contributors should a competitor decide to get aggressive in its pricing. If company XYZ is willing to pay double to its contributors what Shutterstock is willing to pay, and can scale into the same size of business with the same amount of customers, which platform do you think contributors would choose? "
The writer is pointing out what many of us already know, which is that SS is basically a middleman making a killing, and could in fact be paying contributors much more - it just hasn't been necessary.
The writer doesn't even begin to understand our industry. If you read the next line after the one you have quoted (somewhat out of context) it becomes obvious. He doesn't realise that SS contributors are not exclusive and, in fact, already have their content on SS's existing competitors.
I think he is correct in that SS is currently over-valued, but not actually for all the reasons he has assumed. Facebook, for example, is way more over-valued than SS on any metric you care to name ... but still the market sustains a ludicrous price.
Good point if we started pulling our content off sites that gouge us they would be forced to pay fair royalties. A good place to start removing content would be BS.
967
« on: July 13, 2013, 16:15 »
I liked this part:
"The biggest problem for the company may lie in the fact that it generated a gross margin of over 61% during Q1 2013. This shows that the business model is lucrative, but also shows that there are plenty of additional profits that could be distributed to contributors should a competitor decide to get aggressive in its pricing. If company XYZ is willing to pay double to its contributors what Shutterstock is willing to pay, and can scale into the same size of business with the same amount of customers, which platform do you think contributors would choose? "
The writer is pointing out what many of us already know, which is that SS is basically a middleman making a killing, and could in fact be paying contributors much more - it just hasn't been necessary.
Gross Margin is expressed as a percent of revenue and is the amount of profit you have for each $1 in sales after deducting all costs directly related to the sale. 61% = .61 cents profit for each dollar of revenue which SS brings in.
968
« on: July 12, 2013, 13:09 »
5) They protect my material from being stolen.
Truth is, they do not seem to care too much. In fact, they became more a security risk by themselves with shady deals like IS/Google drive or Bigstock/Zazzle. With those deals they devaluate our work or force us to compete with ourselves or give up on them.
In most cases of real theft the Contributor himself points out an abuse and many times he files himself a takedown request. I havent heard yet of any department on SS or IS which scans the net for illicit use by themselves. They only react - sometimes - on request of us.
Honestly, who needs a abusive middleman anymore? We can be independent, and even if we sell less in the beginning we will not feel like bloody losers being spit on
Dan, I think it is a good time to take some time off. In two years everything may look different. I totally understand and respect your situation....
istockreseller.com - Scam sitehttp://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/scam-site/50/Infringement is OK by Shutterstockhttp://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131248
969
« on: July 12, 2013, 01:20 »
The buyer side seems fine now, its the contributor side. But you get used to it. Its a general HTTP 500 error, just meaning that the request on the server could not be completed. Happens too much on SS and you wonder if it also affects sales.
Here are the thoughts of a few trying to find out why searches were not working. I would expect this to be a small sampling of those affected. http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/shutterstock.com.html#commentstop
970
« on: July 11, 2013, 15:52 »
Exactly what I meant to say, Gbalex, but you said it better.
We must have been typing it at the same time. You made a very good point "SS has a database of 27 millions images, how many depict western culture? They dont need more of that."
971
« on: July 11, 2013, 15:38 »
I fully expect SS to implement the BigStock royalty model at some point, and great though the earnings are, if SS cuts my royalties, I'll leave them too.
I fully expect it too, and have said as much more than once since the Bigstock implementation. The U.S. has not experienced bear market in stocks since early 2009. The next time it happens, Shutterstock's shares will follow the market down. At that point, a lot of shareholders will sell in fear. Many of those who hold on to their shares will demand higher earnings to justify the increased market risk. And when that happens, SS will have two choices -
1) Ignore shareholders and let them sell, forcing the share price even lower
2) Placate them by finding ways to be more profitable.
It's almost always #2, and I think we can guess the easiest way for them to increase margins and earnings instantly.
They have no loyalty to the submitters who provided the assets that made them successful. In fact they have been successfully killing off their best sellers. I don't think SS is at all worried that those submitters are not happy or that they counted on those funds. I fully expect to see them promoting submitter membership in areas where they can exploit the naivety of new submitters in low cost of living zones who will pony up the production cost's of new content just like we did. They know that if they entertain new submitters in those zones; in the longer term they can drive content prices down the furthest in those low cost of living zones. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt130174.htmlI won't thank them for driving the price of our assets down, keeping the price of new assets stagnate for over 6 years and finally putting functionality in place to drive them down further via BS. They had a chance to reward HCV submitters with offset, but they chose to turn their backs on us in lieu of new submitters who had nothing to do with driving the initial growth or wealth for SS. SS does not have to cut royalties at SS they only have to drive traffic to BS where they have accumulated pretty much the same images. I expect that large business deals will end up as BS subs.
973
« on: July 10, 2013, 18:46 »
The old socialist "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.
Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?
Why should someone in India be getting a full-time US wage? Why should someone who is self-employed supplying a dozen companies with their product have a right to a livable wage (by US standards) from each of those companies? Why should anybody be entitled to more than they have freely agreed to accept for their work? Why should artists with all sorts of different skills and abilities, and levels of effort, all be entitled to a US living wage? Should that apply to everyone with more than 10 images, or more than 100, or more than 1,000 or more than 10,000? Or should they all get the same regardless of everything, and regardless of whether their work sells or not?
I mean, really, this "workers deserve a living wage" stuff - while it is fair enough for US employees - is utter nonsense when you start trying to apply it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to have sent a few pictures to an agency. We are NOT employees, we are individual businesses working for ourselves and using whatever different agency arrangements happen to suit us.
Maybe you would like to help SS promote the company by helping them produce compelling promotional marketing material via your story. Since you reside in Qatar you might have a better chance of winning the cash prize if you move to a dark green area where I am sure they will be actively promoting these SS success stories. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/gmaps.jsphttp://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2013/07/stories/
974
« on: July 10, 2013, 16:39 »
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL
I rather think the "spewing nonsense" is on the other side. The only reason this has come up is because of the valuation of the stock by Wall Street. It's completely unrelated to production costs or anything else, it's just "oooh look how much money they've made, they should have given some of it to me instead". It's nonsense, it's not even real money, it's a notional paper profit.
What's more, I am not gaining from the SS share price, I'm certainly not gaining from iS's shenanigans and I resent being called a shill for the crime of pointing out that we don't live in a quasi-commie paradise where all the profits are handed over to the company's suppliers, as some people keep suggesting they should be. My only relationship with both these companies is as a supplier of images, the same as most others in this thread.
SS has grown its overall business, which has allowed us to boost our earnings while carrying on doing exactly what we were doing seven years ago, even using the same equipment if we want to. I don't see what is unfair about that. Oh, but I forgot, Jon's got a billion dollars that he should be giving away just like Getty and every other corporation gives its wealth away.
What a lot of molluscs!
I would agree with you if SS produced it's own assets, the fact is they do not. Why don't you go to lunch with a few of the HCV producers who have been affected. To start look adigrosu, aquafish and many more in the face and tell them they do not deserve a raise from a company who is prospering by offering the asset they produced for sale. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258
975
« on: July 10, 2013, 15:37 »
Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.
Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.
Surely you remember that Bruce sold Istock in 2006 just before the world slipped into a global recession. The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006 is widely know to have kicked the world into a deep and prolonged recession. Go dig up the threads on SS asking for a raise it is all there in black and white.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
