MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: KnowYourOnions on January 03, 2015, 17:09
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/a-look-back-at-2014-by-shutterstocks-founder-and-ceo-jon-oringer (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/a-look-back-at-2014-by-shutterstocks-founder-and-ceo-jon-oringer)
-
Yes, indeed. Well done! Noone has sailed the difficult world of stock as cleverly as they have.
-
Some nice reading. A raise would be nice since they are doing so good...
Come to mention it, did anyone get a Xmas card from them this year?
-
Some nice reading. A raise would be nice since they are doing so good...
Come to mention it, did anyone get a Xmas card from them this year?
Not me. But I got a $28 DL the day after Xmas!!
-
No card this year. :(
-
No card this year. :(
No card ever.
-
They send cards?
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
exactly!!! and also for bringing the valuation of RF imagery to an all time low. it's rather sickening when one really thinks about it.
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
exactly!!! and also for bringing the valuation of RF imagery to an all time low. it's rather sickening when one really thinks about it.
Well at least these guys selling our stuff and not just collect our media files to show off to their investors how big data base they have.
No point media files sitting on their servers even with 80% commission offered if there is nobody to buy it!
Companies that don't invest in sales operations and marketing seriously will never sell our stuff because buyers just don't care about 30% or 60% artist commission.
They want quality and professionalism. So for that reason SS IS THE WINNER here.
And... it's totally not realistic to expect high commission while running a serious company, with all expenses and pro employees involved.
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
exactly!!! and also for bringing the valuation of RF imagery to an all time low. it's rather sickening when one really thinks about it.
Well at least these guys selling our stuff and not just collect our media files to show off to their investors how big data base they have.
No point media files sitting on their servers even with 80% commission offered if there is nobody to buy it!
Companies that don't invest in sales operations and marketing seriously will never sell our stuff because buyers just don't care about 30% or 60% artist commission.
They want quality and professionalism. So for that reason SS IS THE WINNER here.
And... it's totally not realistic to expect high commission while running a serious company, with all expenses and pro employees involved.
and the contributors and the industry ARE THE LOSER! ::)
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
exactly!!! and also for bringing the valuation of RF imagery to an all time low. it's rather sickening when one really thinks about it.
Well at least these guys selling our stuff and not just collect our media files to show off to their investors how big data base they have.
No point media files sitting on their servers even with 80% commission offered if there is nobody to buy it!
Companies that don't invest in sales operations and marketing seriously will never sell our stuff because buyers just don't care about 30% or 60% artist commission.
They want quality and professionalism. So for that reason SS IS THE WINNER here.
And... it's totally not realistic to expect high commission while running a serious company, with all expenses and pro employees involved.
and the contributors and the industry ARE THE LOSER! ::)
If you have better ideas how to solve this, why not start a company?
All I am saying, we do earn nice $ with SS and must be some good reason why they sit on top of this Big 4 list.
Contributors are the winners too, otherwise not so many would submit their files to SS. :-)
-
Some nice reading. A raise would be nice since they are doing so good...
Come to mention it, did anyone get a Xmas card from them this year?
hear hear 4 sure !!! yes a raise would be nice.
but u know me, i was big against ss during their mid year crisis ;D with approval mood swing
but late in the year something did change and maybe the organizational makeup has been
to roll some heads and get ss back to shape. and it looks good so far in terms of reviews and sales.
-
I found this line particularly interesting "there are millions of files on Shutterstock that buyers will not find anywhere else". What does that remind y'all of?
(And I'd vote for a rise, too!)
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
exactly!!! and also for bringing the valuation of RF imagery to an all time low. it's rather sickening when one really thinks about it.
Well at least these guys selling our stuff and not just collect our media files to show off to their investors how big data base they have.
No point media files sitting on their servers even with 80% commission offered if there is nobody to buy it!
Companies that don't invest in sales operations and marketing seriously will never sell our stuff because buyers just don't care about 30% or 60% artist commission.
They want quality and professionalism. So for that reason SS IS THE WINNER here.
And... it's totally not realistic to expect high commission while running a serious company, with all expenses and pro employees involved.
and the contributors and the industry ARE THE LOSER! ::)
If you have better ideas how to solve this, why not start a company?
All I am saying, we do earn nice $ with SS and must be some good reason why they sit on top of this Big 4 list.
Contributors are the winners too, otherwise not so many would submit their files to SS. :-)
here i must say i agree with ss. where else do u find regular sales? where else do u get 25,85, 105
USD for a single sale? even if there is a site promising us 250 USD for sales and more % commission than shutterstock, 100% of nothing is nothing.
giving ss end of the year clean-up, i think i expect better things to come for contributors
.
-
I found this line particularly interesting "there are millions of files on Shutterstock that buyers will not find anywhere else". What does that remind y'all of?
(And I'd vote for a rise, too!)
it just means more of us feel we waste energy upload elsewhere so we give to ss.
of course, we should vote for a raise. if the shareholders get fatter, we too should ;D
-
I found this line particularly interesting "there are millions of files on Shutterstock that buyers will not find anywhere else". What does that remind y'all of?
(And I'd vote for a rise, too!)
it just means more of us feel we waste energy upload elsewhere so we give to ss.
of course, we should vote for a raise. if the shareholders get fatter, we too should ;D
It seems to me that they are trying to trump the last fragment of sales strategy that iS uses.
-
bravo? for ensuring the success of absurd commissions in micro stock markets for eternity?
exactly!!! and also for bringing the valuation of RF imagery to an all time low. it's rather sickening when one really thinks about it.
Well at least these guys selling our stuff and not just collect our media files to show off to their investors how big data base they have.
No point media files sitting on their servers even with 80% commission offered if there is nobody to buy it!
Companies that don't invest in sales operations and marketing seriously will never sell our stuff because buyers just don't care about 30% or 60% artist commission.
They want quality and professionalism. So for that reason SS IS THE WINNER here.
And... it's totally not realistic to expect high commission while running a serious company, with all expenses and pro employees involved.
and the contributors and the industry ARE THE LOSER! ::)
If you have better ideas how to solve this, why not start a company?
All I am saying, we do earn nice $ with SS and must be some good reason why they sit on top of this Big 4 list.
Contributors are the winners too, otherwise not so many would submit their files to SS. :-)
here i must say i agree with ss. where else do u find regular sales? where else do u get 25,85, 105
USD for a single sale? even if there is a site promising us 250 USD for sales and more % commission than shutterstock, 100% of nothing is nothing.
giving ss end of the year clean-up, i think i expect better things to come for contributors
.
+1
....well said, seriously .... 100% of nothing is nothing!
:)
-
As microstocks go, i believe SS is one of the better companies. But really, overall, 38 cents for an image is nowhere near what i consider a "high commission".
-
Yea, a raise would be very welcome if things are going so well for them. But why would they?
-
Yea, a raise would be very welcome if things are going so well for them. But why would they?
Colin, this brings up a good point. I think sometime ago there was a thread on this but I can't find it. But to my bolded statement, what would be a good raise?
I think if you have made SS like $20k, .40 cents, $30k, .45 and $40k, .50 on sub sales. I also believe that they should do something similar on OD sales.
$20k 2.85=$3.25
$30k 2.85=$3.50
$40k 2.85=$3.75
Something like that. Obviously more is better, but I tried to be realistic with the fact that
1. now that they are publicly traded we will probably never see a raise
2. If they did give us a raise it would probably be no more than what I stated, but I could be wrong....it's all a guess.
-
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?
But sometimes just being grateful for people who really helped us earn some money might be good, no? :-)
As I said before, if somebody knows solution to the complex operations of a stock agency to make everyone happy, please step forward and open one asap.
p.s. of course, I am all for a raise!
-
+1 for a tiered raise. They could even balance their books books by offering a staggered system like IS used to have back in the good old pre-Getty days. That way there's motivation for trying to increase sales there and give them your best contents.
-
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.
-
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.
Out of all agencies out there, I think these guys are not bad...and they appear the best sellers (because they put effort in it). They are not cheating and promising more than they say.
Our files are NOT just sitting on their servers forever like with other agencies (who promise more %), which I personally call a scam.
SS is actively selling our media files and probably with operational costs can not afford to pay us more. It's capitalism! AND Yes, it sucks!
p.s. +1 for a tiered raise.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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)
-
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
:)
-
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
-
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
-
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.....
-
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
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg)
Now they sell this for 25 cent
(http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg)
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
Ya gotta love these groupies. Now we only need an ISArtist, DTArtist and FTArtist 8)
-
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
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
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!
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
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.
-
Agencies get commission we get royalties
-
I wonder when we finally get contributor stats working?
-
I prefer FARTist they are all full of gas ;D
LOL! :D
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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. ::)
Your first name must be Sherlock cuz I bet you solved this mystery. Wish I could plus you more than just +1. You are so right.
-
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
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.
-
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! :)
It would be nice to have moderators to protect me from bullying, personal attacks, labeling, twisting my words and lies that some members spread around here.
Anyone brave enough to say something and stop this ganging?
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
Ron, in case I didn't say before, it's real nice to have you back on msg. Great post.
...same here - I m glad ron is back ....
-
Oh i like this discussion a lot.
It's always nice to see that there will always be proletarians,who shout in defense of big undustries' ethics whose true value is (historically in capitalism) only reflected on the 6 figures their
golden boys earn from all of us.
But it's ok.If i was a big company shamelessly announcing profits in my blog and had the last wheel of the wagon cheering me on my success i would propably consider to pay him less next time,certainly not more.
Now let us all pray for the stock industry to thrive,even if it means less and less for us.
-
I don't think SSartist is anything to do with the agency, I think he is just still in the Woo-Yay phase because he is selling some images. Weren't we all there once (at least, all of us who started selling through microstock, rather than coming to it from another photographic background)?
-
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! :)
It would be nice to have moderators to protect me from bullying, personal attacks, labeling, twisting my words and lies that some members spread around here.
Anyone brave enough to say something and stop this ganging?
That's what I love about people like you ~ you go on the internet and pontificate about all that is holy and true (in your world view) then as soon as anyone has the temerity to disagree you start squealing "foul" and "bullying" and the powers that be must "protect" me.
When really what you are doing is playing a nasty game with contributors then trying to "censor" any view that does not correspond with yours.
Have you heard the saying "sticks and stones"? Grow some!
-
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! :)
It would be nice to have moderators to protect me from bullying, personal attacks, labeling, twisting my words and lies that some members spread around here.
Anyone brave enough to say something and stop this ganging?
That's what I love about people like you ~ you go on the internet and pontificate about all that is holy and true (in your world view) then as soon as anyone has the temerity to disagree you start squealing "foul" and "bullying" and the powers that be must "protect" me.
When really what you are doing is playing a nasty game with contributors then trying to "censor" any view that does not correspond with yours.
Have you heard the saying "sticks and stones"? Grow some!
I have no idea why you have a need to polarize us here, when we ALL indeed in the same basket?!? Please read my posts and stop putting words into my mouth.
Calling me names, suggesting that I work for SS and being plain rude is NOT going to bring good to any of us. It's just a time waste, imho.
-
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. ::)
I can't stand that wooyay attitude either, but do you honestly believe SS needs to send in some employer to try and convince us of their superiority? As if SS has sleepless nights about a few microstockers demanding a raise. This is just a fanboy acting on his own, not some PR job.
-
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! :)
It would be nice to have moderators to protect me from bullying, personal attacks, labeling, twisting my words and lies that some members spread around here.
Anyone brave enough to say something and stop this ganging?
That's what I love about people like you ~ you go on the internet and pontificate about all that is holy and true (in your world view) then as soon as anyone has the temerity to disagree you start squealing "foul" and "bullying" and the powers that be must "protect" me.
When really what you are doing is playing a nasty game with contributors then trying to "censor" any view that does not correspond with yours.
Have you heard the saying "sticks and stones"? Grow some!
I have no idea why you have a need to polarize us here, when we ALL indeed in the same basket?!? Please read my posts and stop putting words into my mouth.
Calling me names, suggesting that I work for SS and being plain rude is NOT going to bring good to any of us. It's just a time waste, imho.
No one has called you names ~ and stop trying the "you have a need to polarize US here" there is no US you are the one who dived in here with your "Woo Hoo" attitude
You are obviously in here as a "flamer" go find some other forum to disrupt ::)
-
@SSartist,
Why did you use SSArtist and now SSContributor as your nick in the first place? Not that you haven't got the right to do so but there wasn't any other name left to pick? Would you prefer if we all changed our names to ISArtist, DTContributor. Wouldn't that be great in an independent discussion forum! Would really up the standards here no?
Ask yourself how you would react to a person called IScontributor who does nothing but preaching about the agency while taking down all others? and please don't act like you haven't done so. If you want to blame someone for the harsh critics you have received so far you can blame yourself.
If there is one thing we ALL know by now is that there is no holy grail in microstock! preaching about one particular agency is truly a waste of time!
That's it from my end. Take note or continue your crusade, all fine by me, good luck and take care whoever your are!
-
One got to laugh after all these useless exchanges.
I hope you all enjoyed reading SS Blog, as informative and interesting.
I won't post on this thread anymore....there is no point.
Love and peace to ALL!
:)
-
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
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.
That was my thought, too, Pete.
-
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
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.
That was my thought, too, Pete.
I normally wouldn't react but it's people like him/her that turn this forum into a bloody circus half the time which is a shame.
-
I'm all for a raise* and I don't need to be convinced that SS can afford it. Problem is, any raise would no doubt beget demands for another and another and the cost would ultimately be met by the buyers not the shareholders. Whoever heard of a shareholder agreeing to a lower dividend just to keep suppliers/buyers or employees happy? Given that, I'd be interested to hear from anyone how an agency might reset buyer expectations in a market we helped the agencies create.
*At the very least a level or two above .38 cents to strive for.
-
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
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.
SSArtist/SSContributor sounds an awful lot like the Ron/Ponke/Semmick Photo from a few months ago, minus the emoticons of course. I guess things have changed a lot since he was a SS ambassador or is he still doing that under another name?
PixelBytes, you may not remember but Ron has made some passionate arguments why SS should not give raises and how they already have so now they don't need to.
-
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
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.
SSArtist/SSContributor sounds an awful lot like the Ron/Ponke/Semmick Photo from a few months ago, minus the emoticons of course. I guess things have changed a lot since he was a SS ambassador or is he still doing that under another name?
Ron's back as Semmick Photo.
-
Unless it's someone just playing the fool to create discussion. I don't believe that they are real or sincere.
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.
SSArtist/SSContributor sounds an awful lot like the Ron/Ponke/Semmick Photo from a few months ago, minus the emoticons of course. I guess things have changed a lot since he was a SS ambassador or is he still doing that under another name?
Ron's back as Semmick Photo.
I know he's back (he never really did leave though, did he?).
-
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.
;) I have run into quite a few people on these boards that can come up with any number of reasons we do not deserve a raise. Ron being one of them. I have never run into a business that seems to receive never ending passes for low pay, site technical issues etc.
I will agree it is nice to see a few more frogs jumping out of the boiling soup these days.
-
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
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/easycube1/img_4003/stock-photo-isolated-measuring-tape-4000.jpg[/url])
Now they sell this for 25 cent
([url]http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/195826/222907966/stock-photo-beauty-autumn-woman-beautiful-fantasy-girl-fairy-in-blowing-transparent-chiffon-dress-fall-222907966.jpg[/url])
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.
STOP SPREADING LIES! I DID NOT SAY THAT!
-
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.
;) I have run into quite a few people on these boards that can come up with any number of reasons we do not deserve a raise. Ron being one of them. I have never run into a business that seems to receive never ending passes for low pay, site technical issues etc.
I will agree it is nice to see a few more frogs jumping out of the boiling soup these days.
CAN ANYONE STOP THIS HATER SPEACH TOWARDS ME? STOP THIS BULLYING NOW. ARE THERE ANY MODERATORS HERE?
-
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! :)
It would be nice to have moderators to protect me from bullying, personal attacks, labeling, twisting my words and lies that some members spread around here.
Anyone brave enough to say something and stop this ganging?
I AM ASKING MODERATORS TO CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW, STOP BULLYING THAT IS HAPPENING WIHTOUT ANY REASON...STOP INVENTING POSTS I NEVER MADE! WHAT KIND OF SICK SOCIETY IS THIS?
-
Whew!
-
Come to mention it, did anyone get a Xmas card from them this year?
Not this year - last year I did. I guess I must have been on the naughty list? :)
I posted this before I read the remainder of this thread...a bit more heat than light...
However, regarding SS, they're producing earnings for us, but I don't have any especially warm feelings towards them as an agency.
Kudos for building up a business from scratch to a profitable public company, and having it continue to grow at a rate that Getty - whose chickens are coming home to roost, IMO - would envy (their revenues are falling).
Kudos for having a site that has probably the best uptime and no-drama-software-updates track record among the micros.
But they do the least they need to in order for the images to keep coming and don't really go the extra mile for contributors. They haven't explicitly cut our earnings, but they have avoided sharing any additional revenue with contributors where they can (flat rate for ELs that didn't go up when they offered more expensive small-volume EL packages, for example) and have refused anything even approaching transparency on the SOD licenses where we're supposed to be happy about bigger numbers without ever knowing what that license is for.
The introduction of BigStock subscriptions at rock bottom royalties with no opt out - cleverly silencing those in the Bridge program by paying them their SS 38 cents - was a disgrace, IMO, and I left BigStock after being refused an opt out. I'm glad they haven't ported that royalty scheme to SS, but as far as what I read here, these screw-the-contributor moves haven't set BigStock sales on fire, so I'm not sure what they got in return for the ill will that generated.
I recently watched a documentary about George Westinghouse, an inventor and industrialist from the age of the Robber Barons who built his many companies while still being very generous to his workers - much to the consternation of his fellow industrialists. You can be fair to suppliers and workers and still build successful businesses - even though that isn't the norm now and wasn't then either. I'm not willing to give SS a woo-yay just because they have done well by competing on price with the established robber baron (Getty) and built a profitable business from which I have benefitted.
SS deserves recognition for a significant accomplishment, but I'm not feeling the "Bravo" myself.
-
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.
;) I have run into quite a few people on these boards that can come up with any number of reasons we do not deserve a raise. Ron being one of them. I have never run into a business that seems to receive never ending passes for low pay, site technical issues etc.
I will agree it is nice to see a few more frogs jumping out of the boiling soup these days.
CAN ANYONE STOP THIS HATER SPEACH TOWARDS ME? STOP THIS BULLYING NOW. ARE THERE ANY MODERATORS HERE?
Calm down SSContributor my post was not directed at you.
I was thinking of threads like this and other threads that followed. http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/last-ss-raise-may-13-2008/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/last-ss-raise-may-13-2008/)
Per thread request - edited to reduce shout size
-
Please don't repost the "shouts", they are SO annoying.
-
Unfortunately, I think the mold was set early on for microstock contributors receiving low commissions. It started out as photographers with little or no prior experience, submitting to make a few bucks. Gradually those photographers got better. Then when the already-in-business photographers saw there was money to be made, they had to jump on the bandwagon to compete and survive and get a little piece of the pie.
As images got better and better, SS gave a little bit of raise to contributors, but most of the other companies decided to go the greedy route and keep everything for themselves (but then again, SS is just as greedy). And they continued the bad behavior, when they saw how many millions of contributors were hooked (it's almost like the microstock companies were dealing crack) and wouldn't leave, no matter how badly they were treated. Why on earth would any of the companies, including SS, give any raises?
It is all a shame, really.
-
And they continued the bad behaviour, when they saw how many millions of contributors were hooked (it's almost like the microstock companies were dealing crack) and wouldn't leave, no matter how badly they were treated. Why on earth would any of the companies, including SS, give any raises?
It is all a shame, really.
You have made a good point there and to this day I see many people complaining on a daily basis but do absolutely nothing about it, even the seasoned contributors do so. It truly is like they're hooked. Agencies know it well enough and exploit it.
-
Unfortunately, I think the mold was set early on for microstock contributors receiving low commissions. It started out as photographers with little or no prior experience, submitting to make a few bucks. Gradually those photographers got better. Then when the already-in-business photographers saw there was money to be made, they had to jump on the bandwagon to compete and survive and get a little piece of the pie.
As images got better and better, SS gave a little bit of raise to contributors, but most of the other companies decided to go the greedy route and keep everything for themselves (but then again, SS is just as greedy). And they continued the bad behavior, when they saw how many millions of contributors were hooked (it's almost like the microstock companies were dealing crack) and wouldn't leave, no matter how badly they were treated. Why on earth would any of the companies, including SS, give any raises?
It is all a shame, really.
I have wondered about this myself, and I am thinking, could it be that we love the creative part so much, in combination with a little dose of narcissism we as humans possess, what gets us hooked to this game? I love to take photos, I love to process them and I love it to see them get downloads. I love to see my photos used, it makes me proud, and I love the money it makes me. Seems it is just all of that combined, which makes us take whatever the agencies give us.
-
Unfortunately, I think the mold was set early on for microstock contributors receiving low commissions. It started out as photographers with little or no prior experience, submitting to make a few bucks. Gradually those photographers got better. Then when the already-in-business photographers saw there was money to be made, they had to jump on the bandwagon to compete and survive and get a little piece of the pie.
As images got better and better, SS gave a little bit of raise to contributors, but most of the other companies decided to go the greedy route and keep everything for themselves (but then again, SS is just as greedy). And they continued the bad behavior, when they saw how many millions of contributors were hooked (it's almost like the microstock companies were dealing crack) and wouldn't leave, no matter how badly they were treated. Why on earth would any of the companies, including SS, give any raises?
It is all a shame, really.
I have wondered about this myself, and I am thinking, could it be that we love the creative part so much, in combination with a little dose of narcissism we as humans possess, what gets us hooked to this game? I love to take photos, I love to process them and I love it to see them get downloads. I love to see my photos used, it makes me proud, and I love the money it makes me. Seems it is just all of that combined, which makes us take whatever the agencies give us.
waa, really all excellent points. +10 full marks 2 u 2.
i remember a jewish businessman once told another ethnic when asked why he refused to lower his prices of custom made suits to beat walmart,etc said "once you lower price, youu cannot raise it so easily".
this is not a jew mentality, i remember in some old chinese movie the same wisdom was quoted.
same with editorials where today newspapers tell newbie photojournalist they don't pay nothing but give your name as creditline . irresistible carrot to newbie, but to us, we say, "hell, i have images all over the world, why do i need your newspaper to credit me?"
but by now, it is also too late for you and me after biting on those carrots and giving all away in subs.
you are right, the take all you want for low price is the killer to all. but i think ss has a prevention for hoarding, no???
-
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.
Very true but the bottom line is that it's a business and the purpose of a business is to maximise profit for the business. They do this well and far more professionally than anyone else. The rates are poor but nobody is forcing any of us to contribute there..
-
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
-
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
they never said it was forever; nothing is forever. dreamstime also has a limit 3yrs , i had all my affliates cut off after 3 yrs without notice too
-
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
they never said it was forever; nothing is forever. dreamstime also has a limit 3yrs , i had all my affliates cut off after 3 yrs without notice too
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money)
"If someone signs up, you will earn a $.03 commission every time one of their images gets downloaded."
I guess by "every time" they really meant something else, honest mistake right?
-
Odd, why do I get 4 cents for referral DLs?
Let me see if I understand:
Most of the agencies, cut pay, cut commissions, cut prices and changed the incentive levels. Most have ended referrals all together or limited the time.
SS held the pay promise and changed the referrals from (implied) lifetime to two years, and what people are complaining about is:
1) It should have been forever
and
2) We should have received a raise.
What about the places that gave no raise, took back income, changed promises, cut levels, cut commissions, opened sub and partner sites (With no Opt Out), sold to API partners with no accountability or notice, some in secret calling them subs. They also offered new discounts to customers, re-valued credits, threatened artists and did other underhanded things to contributors.
And people are upset because "we should get a raise" from the one place that puts four times in money in the bank, over the rest? Really?
Yes, I'd agree, we should get a raise, but I'm not calling out SS or complaining about it. I'm happy getting the monthly commissions. There is a difference.
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
they never said it was forever; nothing is forever. dreamstime also has a limit 3yrs , i had all my affliates cut off after 3 yrs without notice too
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money[/url])
"If someone signs up, you will earn a $.03 commission every time one of their images gets downloaded."
I guess by "every time" they really meant something else, honest mistake right?
-
Odd, why do I get 4 cents for referral DLs?
Let me see if I understand:
Most of the agencies, cut pay, cut commissions, cut prices and changed the incentive levels. Most have ended referrals all together or limited the time.
SS held the pay promise and changed the referrals from (implied) lifetime to two years, and what people are complaining about is:
1) It should have been forever
and
2) We should have received a raise.
What about the places that gave no raise, took back income, changed promises, cut levels, cut commissions, opened sub and partner sites (With no Opt Out), sold to API partners with no accountability or notice, some in secret calling them subs. They also offered new discounts to customers, re-valued credits, threatened artists and did other underhanded things to contributors.
And people are upset because "we should get a raise" from the one place that puts four times in money in the bank, over the rest? Really?
Yes, I'd agree, we should get a raise, but I'm not calling out SS or complaining about it. I'm happy getting the monthly commissions. There is a difference.
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
they never said it was forever; nothing is forever. dreamstime also has a limit 3yrs , i had all my affliates cut off after 3 yrs without notice too
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/homepage-tools-part-1-make-money[/url])
"If someone signs up, you will earn a $.03 commission every time one of their images gets downloaded."
I guess by "every time" they really meant something else, honest mistake right?
My reply was in response to the statement that Shutterstock has never cut our earnings. They did. It's as simple as that.
-
They didn't cut earnings, they limited the period for Referral payment credits. :)
I'm not really going to disagree with you. They did change the contract.
I was going for the general thread, including your comments, not limited to ONLY your observation. I wish the subject was not named what it is. I can do without the Bravo cheer leading, even thought I like what I get from SS.
Someone please tell me, what other agency, that produces income, has never made pay cuts? Or better yet, name one other that ever gave us a raise! ???
SS did increase pay and added higher levels over the years. I'd be all for a new higher level for those people who make SS the success it is. They deserve the reward for their efforts. (more than I do for just barely making the top level)
My reply was in response to the statement that Shutterstock has never cut our earnings. They did. It's as simple as that.
-
They didn't cut earnings, they limited the period for Referral payment credits. :)
Interesting that Shutterstock called them earnings: "The Referral program is a great way to earn additional income through Shutterstock, aside from selling your images and video."
or
"The royalty payable to you for such referred downloads is set forth on the Earnings Schedule."
They were earnings and they were cut, they cut earnings. I don't see how you can argue with that?
-
One more higher tiered contributor level raise would be nice. Let's face it, those that have earned more than 5 or 6 figures (gross; lifetime) with Shutterstock are in the minority. Something like that wouldn't entirely bankrupt the company, or put that much of a dent into its overhead.
One extra tier will also motivate its more seasoned contributors to submit even more great content. "Cream of the crop" type content. Either way, I've always been very thankful for the opportunity with SS all of these years.
-
They cut referral earnings back to 3 years but upped the royalty from 3 to 4 cent. Thats what I recall.
-
One more higher tiered contributor level raise would be nice. Let's face it, those that have earned more than 5 or 6 figures (gross; lifetime) with Shutterstock are in the minority. Something like that wouldn't entirely bankrupt the company, or put that much of a dent into its overhead.
One extra tier will also motivate its more seasoned contributors to submit even more great content. "Cream of the crop" type content. Either way, I've always been very thankful for the opportunity with SS all of these years.
Are seasoned contributors really going to submit even more great content, cream of the crop type content? I seriously doubt that. How high will that raise be? 25 to 33 cent is the biggest difference, 8 cent, then 3 cent, then 2 cent. How high does a raise need to be to entice seasoned contributors to submit even more great content?
And I think all contributors should get a raise, not only the high earners, or the ones longest with SS.
-
Someone please tell me, what other agency, that produces income, has never made pay cuts? Or better yet, name one other that ever gave us a raise! ???
... or where most of us receive regular (monthly) payout.
this coming from me, as Uncle Pete know, not just a cheerleader for ss as i have been a loud objector in the other thread re ss. but i support the ss i know from old, and the directional changes last month which show ss is back to being the shutterstock i know and am proud of.
-
Someone please tell me, what other agency, that produces income, has never made pay cuts? Or better yet, name one other that ever gave us a raise! ???
Photodune gave us a raise not long ago. I went from 33% to 36%.
-
Performance rewards, and seniority; they are pretty standard in the corporate world. I don't see why they shouldn't happen for us, as we are still providing content for the corporation. Even better quality images than when we first started. You pay your dues, do your due diligence and should get rewarded; not screwed. That's usually how it goes, but unfortunately life isn't always that fair. I'm not saying we are being screwed, but it's not easy competing with all the content from other photographers and illustrators that is steadily flowing in. That's why I think those who have been backing the company the longest should get "a little something sweeter" for their loyalty and hard work. It's the least we could get... it's not like we don't have to pay for our own overpriced healthcare plans now, as independent contractors (or face a 2% yearly penalty on our income, by the govt.)
I would definitely be a lot more motivated to create more images, if there was a raise. When you sell thousands of licenses per month, those 3 to 5 cents extra per subscription sale really do help.
-
Cream of the crop content cost a lot to produce, for 50 dollars more per month, are you going to invest in a 2000 dollar photo shoot?
-
I'd love to see a video of Oringer speaking to a room full of photographers - instead of stockholders or Wall Street pundits. Would it be the same Orwellian "less is more" double-think? Of course. It's the best of all possible worlds, for contributors.
-
Cream of the crop content cost a lot to produce, for 50 dollars more per month, are you going to invest in a 2000 dollar photo shoot?
If you think that's what it takes to make it full time as a stock photographer, you may have been misinformed. I have honestly never invested more than $50 in any one photoshoot. Most cost me nothing but my time and my gas, which I expense. My gear is super cheap, in the longrun. I get many years out of it. I use my time, my ingenuity, and whatever I have on hand to keep overhead low. You work with what you have, when you're working for pennies. When you have a huge commercial budget working for someone else, it's a different story.
Let's not get too off topic here.
-
There was a smiley and I did say I wasn't going to argue. It was just semantics humor and the fact that they never promised "forever" which you had claimed. I make my money from what I earn, not from what I refer. I could argue all day why referrals are not earnings... they are a bonus for recruiting. But no matter what the words, they did limit the term of the referral income - yes that's true.
Every contract, for every agency, says they reserve the right to make changes with notice.
But I need to ask, are you an IS exclusive or are you actually on SS with some referrals? You linked to a 2011 page that says 3 cents, and it went up to 4 cents. Yet another increase from SS.
I do agree that there's no reason for SS to give us a raise. And as a publicly traded stock, makes them want to make money for those people, not us. I'm just saying... it would be a nice gesture for the people who made the company what it is, and made a number of millionaires out of the officers of SS.
Here's the one I want to promote: Create Your Mini-Gallery
This is an extension of the Referral Program that allows you to display a mini-gallery on your own website or blog that links to your Shutterstock images. If a purchase is made as a result, you'll receive 20% (up to $50) of the subscription price (in addition to your download commission).
Just added it to five websites. I have low expectations, but why not?
They didn't cut earnings, they limited the period for Referral payment credits. :)
Interesting that Shutterstock called them earnings: "The Referral program is a great way to earn additional income through Shutterstock, aside from selling your images and video."
or
"The royalty payable to you for such referred downloads is set forth on the Earnings Schedule."
They were earnings and they were cut, they cut earnings. I don't see how you can argue with that?
-
They didn't cut earnings, they limited the period for Referral payment credits. :)
Interesting that Shutterstock called them earnings: "The Referral program is a great way to earn additional income through Shutterstock, aside from selling your images and video."
or
"The royalty payable to you for such referred downloads is set forth on the Earnings Schedule."
They were earnings and they were cut, they cut earnings. I don't see how you can argue with that?
they should have grandfathered in existing, then cut off all new
-
Cream of the crop content cost a lot to produce, for 50 dollars more per month, are you going to invest in a 2000 dollar photo shoot?
If you think that's what it takes to make it full time as a stock photographer, you may have been misinformed. I have honestly never invested more than $50 in any one photoshoot. Most cost me nothing but my time and my gas, which I expense. My gear is super cheap, in the longrun. I get many years out of it. I use my time, my ingenuity, and whatever I have on hand to keep overhead low. You work with what you have, when you're working for pennies. When you have a huge commercial budget working for someone else, it's a different story.
Let's not get too off topic here.
How much do you think Yuri's images cost to produce? Or Sean's flight attendant shoot in a real air-plane? $50? Are they enticed to shoot more cream of the crop for a 5 cent raise?
I am not ill informed, my photoshoots cost me nothing either.
-
Performance rewards, and seniority; they are pretty standard in the corporate world. I don't see why they shouldn't happen for us, as we are still providing content for the corporation. Even better quality images than when we first started. You pay your dues, do your due diligence and should get rewarded; not screwed. That's usually how it goes, but unfortunately life isn't always that fair. I'm not saying we are being screwed, but it's not easy competing with all the content from other photographers and illustrators that is steadily flowing in. That's why I think those who have been backing the company the longest should get "a little something sweeter" for their loyalty and hard work. It's the least we could get... it's not like we don't have to pay for our own overpriced healthcare plans now, as independent contractors (or face a 2% yearly penalty on our income, by the govt.)
I would definitely be a lot more motivated to create more images, if there was a raise. When you sell thousands of licenses per month, those 3 to 5 cents extra per subscription sale really do help.
In the corporate world there are a limited amount of highly skilled people to fill a limited amount of positions. Incentives are used to try to keep good talent and improve finances.
Shutterstock probably doesn't have a limited supply of skilled contributors. And they seem to be happy with their finances. They already have a bazillion images with millions more added monthly. If they offered an incentive to contributors to produce more images would those more images make them more money? I'd say probably not and the fact they haven't done anything to offer more benefits to contributors would support that. Most of their massive $30 million plus annual marketing spend goes toward attracting buyers.
If you owned SS what would be your financial goal? Maybe to increase buyer spending while minimizing downloads that need to be paid to contributors? Maybe the goal is to have good enough content to continue attracting buyers but not so good of content that downloads increase? The only reason they would offer incentives to contributors is because of a financial problem. If sales are down, and the sales team is telling management that they're losing sales because corporate buyers are saying content sucks, you can bet suddenly they will start coming up with "contributor needs guides". If that doesn't work then they may offer financial incentives. But that's only to correct a financial problem.
Also be careful of what you ask for. IS implemented a performance based model to reward higher performers who produced high quantities of saleable work and "motivate" the people who weren't producing saleable content. Redeemed Credits anyone? We see how well that worked. Especially when your performance is tied to how well the company's sales are doing.
So SS doesn't seem to have any financial problems at the moment and they have no reason to offer a performance incentive. In fact it may not be a good sign if they start offering incentives because it could mean they're having sales problems.
-
I disagree. The big buyers—ad agencies—are starting to see the change in quality at Shutterstock and are more likely to sign on, leading to larger sales. I think that's a reason to offer contributors another subs tier, at least. Plus, it's just nice to reward the people who are helping your success. Especially when you're a billionaire.
-
I disagree. The big buyers—ad agencies—are starting to see the change in quality at Shutterstock and are more likely to sign on, leading to larger sales. I think that's a reason to offer contributors another subs tier, at least. Plus, it's just nice to reward the people who are helping your success. Especially when you're a billionaire.
If you're saying big buyers are seeing a positive change in quality and more ad agencies are signing on then you're proving my point. SS is growing the buyer base without incentives to contributors so they have no reason to give a financial incentive. Could they get more big buyers by offering contributors an incentive to produce more of the right content? Maybe, but my guess is they already ran the analysis on that and determined either the payoff or risk weren't worth it or they would have done it already.
Nice? He probably didn't become a billionaire by being nice or doing things out of the kindness of his heart. I'd guess quite the opposite. He offers no incentive and people love him. He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
-
I disagree. The big buyers—ad agencies—are starting to see the change in quality at Shutterstock and are more likely to sign on, leading to larger sales. I think that's a reason to offer contributors another subs tier, at least. Plus, it's just nice to reward the people who are helping your success. Especially when you're a billionaire.
If you're saying big buyers are seeing a positive change in quality and more ad agencies are signing on then you're proving my point. SS is growing the buyer base without incentives to contributors so they have no reason to give a financial incentive. Could they get more big buyers by offering contributors an incentive to produce more of the right content? Maybe, but my guess is they already ran the analysis on that and determined either the payoff or risk weren't worth it or they would have done it already.
Nice? He probably didn't become a billionaire by being nice or doing things out of the kindness of his heart. I'd guess quite the opposite. He offers no incentive and people love him. He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
The advantage for SS is that if some of the bigger players get fed up and say "no raise, I'm done, they just don't pay enough" the impact is minuscule, if any. For every one good contributor who throws in the towel there are 10 more good ones who will keep contributing. There is simply no risk to SS to leave commissions as is. Can they afford to give a raise? Probably. But the pressure from being a publicly traded company and maximizing profits goes 100% against a raise. I personally cannot see it happening. Also, generally speaking, microstock commissions aren't meant to allow us to make a living at micro stock today, so a 'cost of living' raise is no longer valid because it's not a working wage we get paid. I am frustrated like the rest, but in my mind I have settled on 38 cents.
-
He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
I can't quite manage a "bravo" for this guy, who's made a ton of money as a middleman by gaining control of a market and exploiting photographers around the world, grinding their margins to dust and causing many skilled and creative people to abandon the business. Yes there is some skill in evidence here, but also a very large component of being in the right place at the right time.
We don't have a 'buyer's market', or a 'seller's market'. What we have today is a 'middleman's market'. Somehow, I don't feel this represents the original dream of the internet and crowdsourcing increasing opportunities for everyone.
I look forward to a day when the photographic community finds ways to route around Shutterstock entirely. That will get a 'bravo' from me.
-
One got to laugh after all these useless exchanges.
I hope you all enjoyed reading SS Blog, as informative and interesting.
I won't post on this thread anymore....there is no point.
Love and peace to ALL!
:)
You need thicker skin. It's not like they can hit you with vegetables from their keyboards. Seriously, who cares what people say on a board, especially if you're anonymous? I've had to take 10 times the abuse when I said I opted back in to the Dollar Photo Club. Flames just make me warmer.
-
He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
I can't quite manage a "bravo" for this guy, who's made a ton of money as a middleman by gaining control of a market and exploiting photographers around the world, grinding their margins to dust and causing many skilled and creative people to abandon the business. Yes there is some skill in evidence here, but also a very large component of being in the right place at the right time.
We don't have a 'buyer's market', or a 'seller's market'. What we have today is a 'middleman's market'. Somehow, I don't feel this represents the original dream of the internet and crowdsourcing increasing opportunities for everyone.
I look forward to a day when the photographic community finds ways to route around Shutterstock entirely. That will get a 'bravo' from me.
Business is a game. He's played it well. Not saying I'm a fan of his but he's a billionaire. I'm not. Good for him. He's doing something right. Nobody's forcing people to contribute so it seems an awful lot of people must be okay with being exploited.
As far as right time, if that's true why has SS seen such huge success while the dozens of other sites never grew or died? That's a little more than timing and luck.
And I totally agree with you about the middleman part. I'm tired of the way things are which is why I've been focusing on selling direct and through other channels.
-
I disagree. The big buyers—ad agencies—are starting to see the change in quality at Shutterstock and are more likely to sign on, leading to larger sales. I think that's a reason to offer contributors another subs tier, at least. Plus, it's just nice to reward the people who are helping your success. Especially when you're a billionaire.
If you're saying big buyers are seeing a positive change in quality and more ad agencies are signing on then you're proving my point. SS is growing the buyer base without incentives to contributors so they have no reason to give a financial incentive. Could they get more big buyers by offering contributors an incentive to produce more of the right content? Maybe, but my guess is they already ran the analysis on that and determined either the payoff or risk weren't worth it or they would have done it already.
Nice? He probably didn't become a billionaire by being nice or doing things out of the kindness of his heart. I'd guess quite the opposite. He offers no incentive and people love him. He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
The advantage for SS is that if some of the bigger players get fed up and say "no raise, I'm done, they just don't pay enough" the impact is minuscule, if any. For every one good contributor who throws in the towel there are 10 more good ones who will keep contributing. There is simply no risk to SS to leave commissions as is. Can they afford to give a raise? Probably. But the pressure from being a publicly traded company and maximizing profits goes 100% against a raise. I personally cannot see it happening. Also, generally speaking, microstock commissions aren't meant to allow us to make a living at micro stock today, so a 'cost of living' raise is no longer valid because it's not a working wage we get paid. I am frustrated like the rest, but in my mind I have settled on 38 cents.
I'm no longer settling for pennies or dollars.
-
One more higher tiered contributor level raise would be nice. Let's face it, those that have earned more than 5 or 6 figures (gross; lifetime) with Shutterstock are in the minority. Something like that wouldn't entirely bankrupt the company, or put that much of a dent into its overhead.
One extra tier will also motivate its more seasoned contributors to submit even more great content. "Cream of the crop" type content. Either way, I've always been very thankful for the opportunity with SS all of these years.
Are seasoned contributors really going to submit even more great content, cream of the crop type content? I seriously doubt that. How high will that raise be? 25 to 33 cent is the biggest difference, 8 cent, then 3 cent, then 2 cent. How high does a raise need to be to entice seasoned contributors to submit even more great content?
And I think all contributors should get a raise, not only the high earners, or the ones longest with SS.
If they add another higher tier, it will benefit the oldies to start with, but it will also give incentives for mid and lower level controbs to aim for. Ss does the most volume for most of us. Even a 3 cent raise would add up to nice extra cash for a lot of sellers.
-
A lot of very good points all around... nice discussion, guys. I can't say I disagree with any of it. The guy who founded Shutterstock originally stumbled upon it, because of his own need. That's his story, at least. The fact that it grew, and the fact that he was able to turn it into a billion dollar company, came from his own business ingenuity and ability to hire the right team along the way. This happens all the time, in all sorts of fields worldwide. It's just business.
Someone in any company is always getting a shorter end of the stick... but everyone benefits. It's all how you look at it, and what your priorities are in life. You could say that the cashiers and baggers at all of the grocery stores are the real ones doing all the hard work, and yet they make minimum wage. So do the burger flippers at the billion dollar McDonald's corp. But yet, these folks are thankful to be able to earn money to make a living, and to provide for their families; however small or meager. None of us posting on this forum are any better than those kind and honest folks. It's just a different field. Different buttons to push. Some eventually decide to move on to find a better paying job, because they're tired of slaving for small wages, or because they feel that their skills have improved much past their pay grade. Others know how to manage their finances and lifestyle enough to be able to make a career working retail, or at a restaurant. I guess really none of us are much better than burger flippers, in the stock world.
I'm very thankful. Even if this microstock wave finally crashes for us independents; I will still be appreciative for the past 8 years of stress-free working from home in my pajamas. It's been a lot longer of a run than I ever thought it would, thus far.
Who do YOU want to be in the grand scheme of microstock? Someone who wants to strive to "be like Mike"? Or someone who is okay picking up the crumbs? I've been a successful crumb picker for a very long time now, and would love to continue the arrangement I have with all of my "middlemen". With greater responsibility comes greater stress. We all need to find our own place and preferences.
-
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)
I think we should all send them a support email requesting they share the profits. http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/ (http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/)
-
I think we should all send them a support email requesting they share the profits. [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/contact/[/url])
actually there is a simpler way... be a shareholder ;)
-
I'm not opposed to a raise. But I don't think some of you give Shutterstock enough credit for the whole process. There's got to be a reason they're leading the market. They aren't the only ones with subscription plans. Almost all sites have them. Despite a number of them being cheaper, including their sister site, Bigstock, they still lead the pack.
I don't know exactly what it is. I think it's probably a combination of marketing, a professional library and a good search algorithm. Customers find what they're looking for more on Shutterstock than they do other sites so they keep coming back.
Without Shutterstock, people don't see your images to license them. I doubt many people gave up contributing entirely to Shutterstock and other sites just to run their own personal stock site. You just can't compete with the variety and library over at Shutterstock.
Giving contributors a raise might a nice thing to do, and I would love one, but I can't see how it would be good business. Contributors aren't going to take their images anywhere else because Shutterstock treats us better than any other microstock site already. They certainly pay me the most of any site, at least 10 times more than the next best earner. They've never cut pay or screwed with levels like Istock and 123RF. They pay on time every month unlike Fotolia. They are open to public criticism unlike Dreamstime. They've actually worked to get me more money with SOD sales that didn't exist before. That's a raise in my book.
At any rate, a raise in levels would be great. I think it would be a good incentive to get old hands contributing fresh content. But it would have to make business sense, and right now, Shutterstock isn't exactly short of fresh content.
-
I don't know exactly what it is. I think it's probably a combination of marketing, a professional library and a good search algorithm. Customers find what they're looking for more on Shutterstock than they do other sites so they keep coming back.
And SALES!
SS invest in selling our media files heavily, which is expensive but crucial for this kind of growth. No life without buyers.
Always check careers to understand which direction companies heading to and where are they standing at the moment.
SS def sales/customer service force enlargement - http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings (http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings)
p.s. This thread got 4660 views so far. I am glad some sensible conversation landed here after my font size 36pt shout. :-)
-
. No life without buyers.
No Shutterstock without our images.
-
. No life without buyers.
No Shutterstock without our images.
That's true. But what else are you going to do with your images? Mine aren't good enough for those special sites. I certainly can't make nearly as much selling them on my own. There's no where to go with them.
Shutterstock has made me $35,000 richer just on its own. I wouldn't even being doing stock at all if it wasn't for that site.
-
. No life without buyers.
No Shutterstock without our images.
That's true. But what else are you going to do with your images? Mine aren't good enough for those special sites. I certainly can't make nearly as much selling them on my own. There's no where to go with them.
Shutterstock has made me $35,000 richer just on its own. I wouldn't even being doing stock at all if it wasn't for that site.
This is a good, sound concern for the masses. Many of us really don't have other outlets outside of micro stock. I am learning several new things this year to help me move in a new direction and that is video. I think I am also going to not sell the below kinds of images in micro stock anymore. They are just too expensive to get and some come with a lot of risk. I think they will all be going to RM. I am also considering yanking all of my existing underwater work even on Alamy and reuploading it as RM if I can get away with it. It will be a big hit to my port size though. But like Paulie Walnuts I've decided to make some changes. Maybe they will work and maybe not, but at least I feel like I am doing something important to my future. This is kinda of my middle strategy, meaning I can't get into the high end market and I am not settling for "all things micro". As far as video, it is already getting sh!t on by some agencies like BigStock and DT and FOTOLIA's infamous BUG. But it is still somewhat a healthier pathway than images I suspect.
-
He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
I can't quite manage a "bravo" for this guy, who's made a ton of money as a middleman by gaining control of a market and exploiting photographers around the world, grinding their margins to dust and causing many skilled and creative people to abandon the business. Yes there is some skill in evidence here, but also a very large component of being in the right place at the right time.
We don't have a 'buyer's market', or a 'seller's market'. What we have today is a 'middleman's market'. Somehow, I don't feel this represents the original dream of the internet and crowdsourcing increasing opportunities for everyone.
I look forward to a day when the photographic community finds ways to route around Shutterstock entirely. That will get a 'bravo' from me.
The ultimate measure of a man is what he does with power and wealth as his true worth is built upon the legacy of his deeds.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one would never wish to live.
Greed flourishes by a thousand tiny surrenders to self seeking, selfishness, self interest.
-
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
Was this forever? Canisters for royalty rates?
Effective January 2011
Royalty rates will no longer be associated to your lifetime download totals, represented by the canister icons. Canisters will now be separate from royalty rates and continue to reflect total lifetime downloads (but they will no longer indicate royalty rates).
Thinkstock and IS subs seem to be at .28 forever, when do I get a raise? You want greed and selfishness.
-
The turning point for me is when they took away my referral Money. I referred many Big players and did rather well for a long time. then Boom ...Gone. I will never forgive that.
-
The turning point for me is when they took away my referral Money. I referred many Big players and did rather well for a long time. then Boom ...Gone. I will never forgive that.
But you are still uploading like a mad man, right?
Wow, I haven't seen sales Like this in I don't know how long. At least 16/18 Months. I hope others also. Sure feels good, Been Uploading Like a madman.
-
. No life without buyers.
No Shutterstock without our images.
That's true. But what else are you going to do with your images? Mine aren't good enough for those special sites. I certainly can't make nearly as much selling them on my own. There's no where to go with them.
Shutterstock has made me $35,000 richer just on its own. I wouldn't even being doing stock at all if it wasn't for that site.
This is a good, sound concern for the masses. Many of us really don't have other outlets outside of micro stock. I am learning several new things this year to help me move in a new direction and that is video. I think I am also going to not sell the below kinds of images in micro stock anymore. They are just too expensive to get and some come with a lot of risk. I think they will all be going to RM. I am also considering yanking all of my existing underwater work even on Alamy and reuploading it as RM if I can get away with it. It will be a big hit to my port size though. But like Paulie Walnuts I've decided to make some changes. Maybe they will work and maybe not, but at least I feel like I am doing something important to my future. This is kinda of my middle strategy, meaning I can't get into the high end market and I am not settling for "all things micro". As far as video, it is already getting sh!t on by some agencies like BigStock and DT and FOTOLIA's infamous BUG. But it is still somewhat a healthier pathway than images I suspect.
I want to break into RM as well, just havent figured out a strategy yet, it is hard to not upload to Shutterstock to be honest.
-
The turning point for me is when they took away my referral Money. I referred many Big players and did rather well for a long time. then Boom ...Gone. I will never forgive that.
How do you make out on IS with referal and sales?
-
i spoke too soon when i said ss sales were picking up... this month half gone is sllllloow as molasses .
not sure if it's just buyers not back from xmas new year off , or just back to bad.
with many of us looking to indie sales or RM , the only thing is there is no site that sells as regular as ss , as semmick admits.
until we find another site that can do such a market whether it is 30cts or 105bucks, i too cannot see me not uploading there even though sales of new works are slow (but picking up).
i guess we sank our own potential by getting rid of istock, didn't we?
-
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
They did cut my earnings. I referred a few people to sign up with the understanding that the referral income was forever.
Was this forever? Canisters for royalty rates?
Effective January 2011
Royalty rates will no longer be associated to your lifetime download totals, represented by the canister icons. Canisters will now be separate from royalty rates and continue to reflect total lifetime downloads (but they will no longer indicate royalty rates).
Thinkstock and IS subs seem to be at .28 forever, when do I get a raise? You want greed and selfishness.
I didn't say iStock didn't cut rates or fotolia or 123rf or any other company. My response was to the person claiming that Shutterstock had never done it cut earnings. They have, that's the only point I was making.
-
I didn't say iStock didn't cut rates or fotolia or 123rf or any other company. My response was to the person claiming that Shutterstock had never done it. They have, that's the only point I was making.
What was that? Could you just clarify your point (for about the four-hundreth time on this and other threads)? When did SS ever cut rates?
-
I didn't say iStock didn't cut rates or fotolia or 123rf or any other company. My response was to the person claiming that Shutterstock had never done it cut earnings. They have, that's the only point I was making.
What was that? Could you just clarify your point (for about the four-hundreth time on this and other threads)? When did SS ever cut rates?
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
Sorry, I meant to say earnings. Edited to fix that.
-
Good old days. :)
-
I didn't say iStock didn't cut rates or fotolia or 123rf or any other company. My response was to the person claiming that Shutterstock had never done it cut earnings. They have, that's the only point I was making.
What was that? Could you just clarify your point (for about the four-hundreth time on this and other threads)? When did SS ever cut rates?
They haven't explicitly cut our earnings,
Sorry, I meant to say earnings. Edited to fix that.
Good old days. :)
Yeah, before SS actually did by changing ELS to percentage and slaughtering our incomes, now making subs a percentage.
I'm just going to add, remember when nearly "everyone" boycotted IS over changes and unsustainable? Remember when almost "everyone" dropped Fotolia because of Dollar Photo club. The changes at Alamy when we paid for the 10% drop, in order to temporarily add an office in New York, for better sales? What a joke that was. And all the rest who adjusted levels and commissions over the years.
I can't read all the threads about unions, boycotts, post on social media or how to hurt Shutterstock, but maybe in one place, with this, I can ask, how did that work out in the past, with all the others? ;D
I mean change or the revenge and attacks are all about actually making some change, not just writing on forums, twitter or FB, and watching nothing change.
Shutterstock 61.4
AdobeStock 42.4
iStock 20.8
exclusive 87.5
Alamy 8.1
Pond5 7.8
123RF 7.5
Dreamstime 4.8
Yeah I see a change, only seven agencies make the list now, not enough votes, hardly interesting earnings. Compared to 5 or 6 years ago when the list was much longer. I'd say there's a trend and that it's being ignored?
-
He's a billionaire because he masterfully played the game of business and managed to make a fortune off of ordinary people. Bravo! Well played.
I can't quite manage a "bravo" for this guy, who's made a ton of money as a middleman by gaining control of a market and exploiting photographers around the world, grinding their margins to dust and causing many skilled and creative people to abandon the business. Yes there is some skill in evidence here, but also a very large component of being in the right place at the right time.
We don't have a 'buyer's market', or a 'seller's market'. What we have today is a 'middleman's market'. Somehow, I don't feel this represents the original dream of the internet and crowdsourcing increasing opportunities for everyone.
I look forward to a day when the photographic community finds ways to route around Shutterstock entirely. That will get a 'bravo' from me.
The ultimate measure of a man is what he does with power and wealth as his true worth is built upon the legacy of his deeds.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one would never wish to live.
Greed flourishes by a thousand tiny surrenders to self seeking, selfishness, self interest.
And here we are... Jon's actions bearing fruit!