MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 2014 by Shutterstock Founder (previously Bravo Shutterstock)  (Read 29678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2015, 14:45 »
+2
I bet everyone involved in this business with SS would ask for a raise: contributors, employees, contractors, Oringer's cleaner...

Why don't we all ask for money from FaceBook, Whatsup, Twitter, Instagram...as we all helped their success at the end of the day?



I use Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family, I use WhatsApp to chat with people, I use Twitter to promote my site, I use Instagram to showcase images. I use Shutterstock to SELL my intellectual property of which they take 75-70%. Big diff.

Hey, You don't need to use SS...It's purely your choice. 


I am merely responding to the argument that I might as well ask Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram for money, because to you that seems to be the same difference. Which it is not.


« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2015, 14:51 »
+15
SS is actively selling our media files and probably with operational costs can not afford to pay us more.

IT amazes me when people with no special knowledge will happily proclaim that an agency "probably" couldn't afford to pay out more. There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.

It is very unlikely that they will pay us more, because they have to maximise profits for shareholders and they are paying enough to get the content they need. But to suppose they COULDN'T pay more if they wanted to is a very large piece of uninformed speculation.

But that isn't in any way accusing them of being anything but straight in their dealings with us.


« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2015, 14:57 »
-1
I bet everyone involved in this business with SS would ask for a raise: contributors, employees, contractors, Oringer's cleaner...

Why don't we all ask for money from FaceBook, Whatsup, Twitter, Instagram...as we all helped their success at the end of the day?



I use Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family, I use WhatsApp to chat with people, I use Twitter to promote my site, I use Instagram to showcase images. I use Shutterstock to SELL my intellectual property of which they take 75-70%. Big diff.

Hey, You don't need to use SS...It's purely your choice. 


I am merely responding to the argument that I might as well ask Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram for money, because to you that seems to be the same difference. Which it is not.

It was my ref to different business models. It's all out there, ToC... without secrets and we all have freedom to join them or not. At least with SS you get some $$$. With FB, Instagram... you give them 100%.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2015, 14:59 »
+9
SS is actively selling our media files and probably with operational costs can not afford to pay us more.

IT amazes me when people with no special knowledge will happily proclaim that an agency "probably" couldn't afford to pay out more. There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true.

It is very unlikely that they will pay us more, because they have to maximise profits for shareholders and they are paying enough to get the content they need. But to suppose they COULDN'T pay more if they wanted to is a very large piece of uninformed speculation.

But that isn't in any way accusing them of being anything but straight in their dealings with us.

The quarterly figures show exactly what they spend, and what they profit. They made millions profit, to say they cant afford a raise is simply naive. They can afford to give us a raise and still increase their profits. As you say, its all about maximising profits now, so a raise would not fit the bill (pun intended)

« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2015, 15:09 »
-12
I said "probably", which doesn't mean "definitely" !!! ... there must be more reasons why not to pay us more. We can guess all night long. But yeah good point, thanks for sharing your spec knowledge BaldricksTrousers and pointing to shareholders greed.
Yeah, cruel capitalism again.

Anyways, it's take it or leave it....

I think these guys are super pro and well deserve Bravo for all done so far. They def have a strategy and do know what they are doing.

Yours 
Naive SSArtist
 :)

« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2015, 15:13 »
+3
I said "probably", which doesn't mean "definitely" !!! ... there must be more reasons why not to pay us more. We can guess all night long. But yeah good point, thanks for sharing your spec knowledge BaldricksTrousers and pointing to shareholders greed.
Yeah, cruel capitalism again.

Anyways, it's take it or leave it....

I think these guys are super pro and well deserve Bravo for all done so far. They def have a strategy and do know what they are doing.

Yours 
Naive SSArtist
 :)

Naive with rose colored glasses

dpimborough

« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2015, 15:18 »
+8
I said "probably", which doesn't mean "definitely" !!! ... there must be more reasons why not to pay us more. We can guess all night long. But yeah good point, thanks for sharing your spec knowledge BaldricksTrousers and pointing to shareholders greed.
Yeah, cruel capitalism again.

Anyways, it's take it or leave it....

I think these guys are super pro and well deserve Bravo for all done so far. They def have a strategy and do know what they are doing.

Yours 
Naive SSArtist
 :)

So which department in Shutterstock do you work  for because you've been hanging round these forums talking them up big style.

A pretty blatant stalking horse IMHO

« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2015, 15:22 »
-6
I said "probably", which doesn't mean "definitely" !!! ... there must be more reasons why not to pay us more. We can guess all night long. But yeah good point, thanks for sharing your spec knowledge BaldricksTrousers and pointing to shareholders greed.
Yeah, cruel capitalism again.

Anyways, it's take it or leave it....

I think these guys are super pro and well deserve Bravo for all done so far. They def have a strategy and do know what they are doing.

Yours 
Naive SSArtist
 :)

Naive with rose colored glasses


Thanks...well I am glad old microstock wolfs will open my eyes and point me to the agency where we will ALL earn a fortune.
Until then, we will all stick with SS, be bitter and spit the fire towards top agency that actually feeds us. ...Hmmm.....

Semmick Photo

« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2015, 15:36 »
+37
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

They used to sell this for 20 cent



Now they sell this for 25 cent






« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2015, 15:56 »
-3
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Of course we should not turn blind eye and of course questioning Shutterstock or any other agency is allowed.

But saying thank you and bravo is allowed too, as these guys are feeding us along with 500 people who work for Shutterstock.

I wanted to be grateful this time of year, and before you jump to attack me again, please look at my previous posts (#21 ...) where I also voted for a raise.

Have a great day you ALL!  :)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2015, 16:08 by SSArtist »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2015, 16:16 »
+8
I am not attacking you by any means. I am not saying SS is a bad company either. It is not in my nature to only whooyay a company when there is room for improvement. I have had many head to head arguments with Gbalex over SS, but he does have a few good points.  I like to take a more middle road standpoint these days. Some they do good, some they do could be better. Extremely positive views or extremely negative views, neither is good.

Snow

« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2015, 16:55 »
+5
Ya gotta love these groupies. Now we only need an ISArtist, DTArtist and FTArtist  8)



dpimborough

« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2015, 17:38 »
+5
Ya gotta love these groupies. Now we only need an ISArtist, DTArtist and FTArtist  8)

I prefer FARTist they are all full of gas  ;D

shudderstok

« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2015, 18:23 »
+5
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

They used to sell this for 20 cent



Now they sell this for 25 cent




They can't sell it for 25 cents if you don't give it away submit it to them and enable that sort of pathetic royalty rate and enable the further devaluation of imagery. Even that horrible photo of the measuring tape is worth more than 25 cents.

« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2015, 18:43 »
0
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

True but there's two ways of looking at it.

A demand for higher quality images benefits the contributor because, while those images may still be rejected by the SS, other agencies accept them - and sales increase because you're offering the buyer a better image. The "raise" I get from the SS may not come in the form of increased commissions but it DOES manifest through increased sales from year to year. If anything, the real criticism should be focused on agencies like IS and 123RF where commissions are cut AND sales decrease.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2015, 18:52 »
+23
They have no reason to pay anybody more. They are making all the right moves for their company, investors, and destroying the competition. They get to work in a swanky ultra expensive NY office building and employees get all kinds of benefits. Execs are rolling in money.

All of this while they pay their contributors pennies per sale and contributors sing love songs about them. Why would they pay any more?

It really is a brilliant business model.

« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2015, 20:13 »
+10
They have no reason to pay anybody more. They are making all the right moves for their company, investors, and destroying the competition. They get to work in a swanky ultra expensive NY office building and employees get all kinds of benefits. Execs are rolling in money.

All of this while they pay their contributors pennies per sale and contributors sing love songs about them. Why would they pay any more?

It really is a brilliant business model.

PLUS they send out paid "sock puppet, fan-boys" trolling forums spreading cockeyed nonsense about the splendor of a business model that pays third-world sweat shop wages/commissions to hard working artist/photographers -- because they can.

SSArtist -- we are not a bunch of gullible, young yeehaa hayseeds misinformed of the reality of the micro and mid-stock industry. This is the wrong forum for your pollyanna optimism and PR con job. If anything, your thread is backfiring on you and your employer (shutterstock). Nice try. ::)


« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2015, 20:28 »
+4
No card this year. :(
I was wondering about this too. No card for me this year. Guess Jon is too busy sending buyers from SS to OFFSET to bother with sending out those lovely Christmas cards this year.

« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2015, 21:41 »
+14
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

They used to sell this for 20 cent



Now they sell this for 25 cent




I can remember a day not long ago when I was jumped for stating the same thing.

Completely agree with your post, there is no comparison between the quality of images accepted in 2004 @ .20 and the quality required for submission today.

It is long past time for a raise!

« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2015, 17:05 »
+1
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

They used to sell this for 20 cent



Now they sell this for 25 cent




nice creative photo the 2nd one.
i can relate to the ridiculous idea in the comparision of zero cost vs production cost today to make the same money. then again, i also get 102 dollars for a single download on a zero cost image.

i agree with both sides. sure, i like to see an increase in commission. but then, that was what happens in dreamstime where the big increase in earning falls as soon as your image earns the top level. so that is a bad idea too.

i would say, if i look at my year-to-year and see a significant growth, ie bigger payout to me each month, then i would say i am happy the way it is.
as opposed to having everyone get an increase in % commission and see no increase in download.
as someone once said, i don't care so long as i am see my payout each month get bigger.

i think i go for that than anything else. show me the money, that's all.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2015, 17:10 »
+2
Agencies get commission we get royalties

« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2015, 17:34 »
0
I wonder when we finally get contributor stats working?

« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2015, 17:44 »
0
I prefer FARTist they are all full of gas  ;D

LOL!  :D

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2015, 19:24 »
+4
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

They used to sell this for 20 cent



Now they sell this for 25 cent




They can't sell it for 25 cents if you don't give it away submit it to them and enable that sort of pathetic royalty rate and enable the further devaluation of imagery. Even that horrible photo of the measuring tape is worth more than 25 cents.


The measuring tape photo is now worthless, it can be snapped on an iPhone for no cost by anyone with no skill at all.

Good illustration of the disparity of production values for the various images that are available under the one price fits all system and how little prices have changed in 10 years.

Wholly unsustainable in the long term without some kind of curation and tiered pricing.

« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2015, 23:13 »
+4
Because they perform better than others, we need to turn a blind eye? Questioning Shutterstock is not allowed because they do well?

Yes they do well, but with an ever increasing cost for production because of their demand of a certain level of quality, it would be only fair to compensate for that increased cost. Days of selling snaps from dusty HDs are long gone, the demand for quality has risen. A demand raised by the agency.

They used to sell this for 20 cent



Now they sell this for 25 cent




Ron, in case I didn't say before, it's real nice to have you back on msg.  Great post.

I gotta admit, SSArtist is the first artist or contrbutor I can remember thats so excited about not getting a raise and so eager on making up reasons we should not have one.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1484 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by pixel86
14 Replies
2675 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 15:34
by JPSDK
11 Replies
3699 Views
Last post January 28, 2014, 00:32
by zeamonkey
52 Replies
9384 Views
Last post August 11, 2014, 12:16
by stryjek
92 Replies
12938 Views
Last post March 13, 2015, 11:04
by LesPalenik

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results