The only thing I'd like to see changed in Shutterstock's submission system is an easy way to select a bunch of images and apply the same release to them.  Other than that, they're about the fastest and easiest to submit to.

I hope this brings more buyers to BigStock. More investing in marketing should help there.

Quote from: Lcjtripod on September 23, 2009, 16:02

Quote from: stockastic on September 23, 2009, 15:53
How can a reduction in competition be good for contributors? This shakeout is part of the  of stock imagery. When everyone is selling the exact same products in shops essentially next door to each other, there is nothing left to compete on but price, and soon all the margin is gone.

Eventually every photo is available on every site. For 10 cents.

Tell me why I'm wrong.

Competition results in LOWER prices. The LACK of competition results in higher prices!

Example: One gas station in a one hundred mile stretch of highway. = $6.00 per gallon
add 50 more gas stations to the same highway = $3.50 per gallon.

I wish about 20 RF sites would dry up and fade away now. Start on the list at the right of this page work your way up from the bottom.

-Larry

Well you're right of course.  Somehow while editing my post, I chopped it up so it didn't make sense. What I was trying to say was that the current situation of next-door stores with the same products has commoditized stock imagery and reduced the price (and margin) to almost nothing.   I interpret the sales of agencies like BigStock and StockXpert as signs of failure due to commodity pricing.  So this shakeout reinforces my feeling that the micostock model is hitting the wall.

If only one or two so-called 'microstocks' are left standing, you are correct that the prices to customers could go up. But since it's been brought so low, that would face huge resistance from buyers. Meanwhile contributors have shown zero resistance to lowered commissions, so they're not likely to go up no matter what.

Just my usual doom and gloom...

Quote from: gostwyck on September 23, 2009, 19:39

Quote from: cardmaverick on September 23, 2009, 18:53
PLEASE-O-PLEASE import Big Stock Photos upload system into Shutterstocks site!!! Shutterstock uploading is so arcane compared to all the other agencies.

You are joking __ right?

No actually, I'm not, I shoot and submit large batches (read: 100's of shots), and I've always gotten all my stuff up on Big Stock Photo WAY faster than Shutterstock. The lack of batch anything at Shutterstock really slows things down. How could it possibly be worse? I suppose if you don't keyword offline or shoot image series type stuff it wouldn't matter.

Oh no.  I hope they won't kill BigStock.  I don't like SS's business model. 

Quote from: MikLav on September 23, 2009, 19:09
no the latest version of BigStock upload is really horrible.
SS system isn't perfect but is much more time efficient.

^^ Totally agree.  I can appreciate the effort that went into the new BigStock system, but the result has definitely left me cold. 

Quote from: madelaide on September 23, 2009, 22:20
Oh no.  I hope they won't kill BigStock.  I don't like SS's business model. 

They won't kill it, they plan to pump it up actually.... They bought it BECAUSE of its credit based system.

Quote from: lisafx on September 23, 2009, 23:09

Quote from: MikLav on September 23, 2009, 19:09
no the latest version of BigStock upload is really horrible.
SS system isn't perfect but is much more time efficient.

^^ Totally agree.  I can appreciate the effort that went into the new BigStock system, but the result has definitely left me cold. 

Really? I don't exactly like the new one better necessarily, but it's not too difficult to utilize.

The new upload system on BigStock is WAY better.  Way faster to upload 100 images.

Quote from: Whiz on September 23, 2009, 23:17

Really? I don't exactly like the new one better necessarily, but it's not too difficult to utilize.

To me it is a PITA to have to remember every time I select multiple images for categories to remember to check that little box so the keywords of each image are preserved.  If I happen to forget then all of a sudden I am spamming because keywords from one image is applied to all selected images.  

So far I haven't forgotten but it is probably only a matter of time...  

Also wondering if the folks who think it's easy are uploading mostly non-model released images? 

Having to break out my uploads into the similars with the same model and then go to the next screen with each group to assign releases, then back to the category/keywording area for the next batch is time consuming and clunky. 

Quote from: lisafx on September 23, 2009, 23:22

Quote from: Whiz on September 23, 2009, 23:17

Really? I don't exactly like the new one better necessarily, but it's not too difficult to utilize.

To me it is a PITA to have to remember every time I select multiple images for categories to remember to check that little box so the keywords of each image are preserved.  If I happen to forget then all of a sudden I am spamming because keywords from one image is applied to all selected images.  

So far I haven't forgotten but it is probably only a matter of time...  

Also wondering if the folks who think it's easy are uploading mostly non-model released images? 

Having to break out my uploads into the similars with the same model and then go to the next screen with each group to assign releases, then back to the category/keywording area for the next batch is time consuming and clunky. 

Oh yeah, that's right. I had forgotten that all the information could be erased by failing to tick off the little check box. That is an annoyance. And I never do deal with model releases. So no opinion for that. 

Quote from: lisafx link=topic=8971.msg116731#msg116731
To me it is a PITA to have to remember every time I select multiple images for categories to remember to check that little box so the keywords of each image are preserved.  If I happen to forget then all of a sudden I am spamming because keywords from one image is applied to all selected images.  

So far I haven't forgotten but it is probably only a matter of time...  

I think it would be MUCH better if the little box is checked by default. BigStock, are you listening?

...and unselecting wrongly guessed categories is a huge pain (usually 2 out of 3)
...and too easy to submit images without releases attached

the principle resembles how it is done by Crestock, but BigStock made it much worse

Ok... iStock and StockXpert, SS and BigStock, Veer and Snap, so do I hear a bid for a DT and Fotolia merger???

Quote from: lisafx on September 23, 2009, 23:22

Quote from: Whiz on September 23, 2009, 23:17

Really? I don't exactly like the new one better necessarily, but it's not too difficult to utilize.

To me it is a PITA to have to remember every time I select multiple images for categories to remember to check that little box so the keywords of each image are preserved.  If I happen to forget then all of a sudden I am spamming because keywords from one image is applied to all selected images.  

So far I haven't forgotten but it is probably only a matter of time...  

Also wondering if the folks who think it's easy are uploading mostly non-model released images? 

Having to break out my uploads into the similars with the same model and then go to the next screen with each group to assign releases, then back to the category/keywording area for the next batch is time consuming and clunky. 

I'm uploading hundreds of model released shots with speedy ease. I think you might have deeper internal workflow kinks to work out. Most upload systems are slow if you approach them with some kind of erratic or unorganized approach. All my shots and release files are strategically named, and it drastically increases my uploading speed. Going back and forth doesn't feel clunky to me, not nearly as much as having to scroll threw hundreds of drop down menus to complete the *same task* over at SS and some other agencies.

Quote from: PenelopeB on September 24, 2009, 01:09
Ok... iStock and StockXpert, SS and BigStock, Veer and Snap, so do I hear a bid for a DT and Fotolia merger???

It will be possible in next realise...     after Vista final vetta betta an even before next wonderful Mitjototoft operajtijonjal cyctem really really final Alpha...

This is a pretty interesting move.  I doubt it will have much impact overall on the contributors uploading to both sites.  I imagine that Shutterstock has been declining in profits the past year with the heavy marketing of subscriptions by the competitors.  In my opinion they are the most limited in potential of all the micros as they require such a commitment from their buyers that isn't necessary elsewhere unless they truly want it. 

Someone made the point earlier in this thread that the content of their database isn't unique either with the majority of photographers dumping their images in every site that will take them.  If I had to guess I would imagine they were in a corner that forced them to either make a move or move out of the way. 

I wonder how much they paid. 

Mat

Let's look at the possible results from this merger...

- We sell more images through BigStock because SS heavily promotes it.  Likely?  Possible, but those sales would have otherwise occured at another site.  I can't see this deal creating new customers, just convincing customers to buy from BigStock instead of somewhere else.  If you're well positioned on BigStock compared to the sites that might lose share, you come out ahead.

- SS/BigStock makes more money, and they pass it along to contributors.  Likely?  Don't hold your breath.  As long as the rise in contributors outpaces the rise in customers, they wouldn't see much incentive to start paying us more.

- SS and BigStock co-exist as separate sites with separate libraries.  Likely?  Doesn't make much sense.  Companies merge when the buyers see the opportunity to capture more revenue while cutting costs out of the equation.  [(SS revenue + BigStock revenue) - (SS costs + BigStock costs)] isn't as profitable as [(SS revenue + BigStock revenue) - (SS costs)].  

Companies just don't go around buying competitors and allowing them to continue operating as it always did, keeping prices down at both the parent company and the acquired company.  Just as most people expect StockXpert to go away soon, with those customers moving into the iStock fold, we will probably see the same thing happen with SS and BigStock, as soon as an SS credit-based model is in place.

^^^I think SS should be able to run the 2 sites much more cheaply.  Lots of us have our entire portfolios on both sites, they now only need to store one.  Our images are being reviewed twice, they might be able to do one review for both sites.  There must be lots of other costs they can save.  We probably wont see any of the extra money but it might help BigStock to grow.  The internet is growing all the time and I am sure there are more potential buyers out there.

People often talk like the market is saturated, but yet absolutely everyone I talk to has NO idea what stock photography is, let alone microstock.  I still think there are customers out there that could make use of microstock and don't know about it.

Does BigStock have office in europe? If it does, now when they merge, does it mean we wont pay SS 30% tax on USA sales?

Quote from: MatHayward on September 24, 2009, 05:27
This is a pretty interesting move.  I doubt it will have much impact overall on the contributors uploading to both sites.  I imagine that Shutterstock has been declining in profits the past year with the heavy marketing of subscriptions by the competitors.  In my opinion they are the most limited in potential of all the micros as they require such a commitment from their buyers that isn't necessary elsewhere unless they truly want it. 

Someone made the point earlier in this thread that the content of their database isn't unique either with the majority of photographers dumping their images in every site that will take them.  If I had to guess I would imagine they were in a corner that forced them to either make a move or move out of the way. 

I wonder how much they paid. 

Mat

Mat, you may have hit the nail on the head. Most contributors have more images on SS than last year and their downloads sales have decreased. I think BigStock needed a buyer and SS is interested in expanding . Credit sales at SS is not setting the world on fire and now they can introduce BigStock.

My question is not about site improvements or upload changes. My question is this better or worst for contributer?

Quote from: Adeptris on September 23, 2009, 16:10

Quote from: disorderly on September 23, 2009, 15:29
I'm optimistic that this will work in our favor.  Both agencies have treated me well, with few if any moments of what? decision making.  The only problem with BigStock is the revenue it generates; a serious marketing effort could make all the difference.  If they see synergy, I'm happy to sit back and watch them, ummmm, synergies.

I would hold the 'yippee's' for a while, for the existing BigStock contributors the flood of new artists migrating from SS will only dilute the revenue far greater than any new marketing can generate 'new sales', as there are limited new markets this move could be just a way to use the SS brand to try to attract Customers from the other 'Credits' agencies existing markets, costs can be reduced to increase profits by bringing both server farms, inspection and administration to SS, when companies are aquired it is not often that the suppliers benefit from the deal.

This move will consolidate SS in the market but will not really benefit the existing BigStock artists that have helped to build the brand, IS and SS both grew thier models as pioneeers in microstock the growth has now peaked and consolidation by aqusition is the new direction.

David (sorry to pee on the fire)

Agree. Many SS contributers who have looked down on BigStock are now jumping on the bandwagon. While revenue at BigStock, SX, and DT have continued to rise for me. The dilution at SS has caused my revenue there to slowly dwindle to the point that it is no longer a lock for first place each month.

I never looked at BigStock before. This is interesting:

QuoteTruly Royalty-Free
Additionally, our royalty-free licensing agreements cover usages that other so called "royalty-free" agreements fail to offer - such as use within web design templates. If you are a creator and seller of web design templates most services like Getty and Photodisc, etc. limit your ability to resell your templates with their so called "royalty-free" photos in them - but not at BigStockPhoto!

Is that the same at Shutterstock?

Quote from: leaf on September 24, 2009, 07:28
People often talk like the market is saturated, but yet absolutely everyone I talk to has NO idea what stock photography is, let alone microstock.  I still think there are customers out there that could make use of microstock and don't know about it.

I think this is true for both buyers and contributors. There are a lot more people that microstock could bring in. Microstock isn't in its infancy anymore, but it may just be a toddler.