MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do you think SS will one day be as 'evil' as IS/FT?  (Read 15916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 17, 2011, 08:46 »
0
Considering the current market position and contributors leaving IS/FT, everyone is happy with how respectful the former underdog SS behaves towards its contributors. And I share in their happiness, but something tells me that one day, SS will become corrupted with greed and starts to screw its own contributors. Think about it, Istock was once what Shutterstock is now, and Istock totally lost control of their contributors and customer traffic, due to mismanagement and greed.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 08:48 by Noedelhap »


wut

« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2011, 08:56 »
0
I think there's more than enough present screwing going on and I don't wanna even think about the future (screwing) ;) . I think there's enough of negativity going on here and would be best to focus on the positive at least once in a while ;)

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Personally, I believe that SS is quite different to IS (cannot speak for FT as I have no dealings with them other than as a [very occasional] buyer). You have to look at the very welcome demise of IS in relation to events that have turned them into the most unpopular microstock library out there. Getty takes a massive responsibility in that regard when they acquired the company. If you look back to the days before then, there did seem to be a real community spirit amongst the contributors - but they were the early adopters of microstock and everything was new and possible. Since those heady days (and I only go back to 2006 with direct contact with the company) the Getty deal, the power they gave incompetent admins (and still do) and the clawing back of royalties (remember last Christmas/New Year) and the insipid and corrosive (at times spiteful) relationship with their contributors - even Exclusives - the bubble has burst. And if you look at the most recent sobering trends - their definitely doomed. Someone stated yesterday in this place they won't be around this time next year.

Will SS become as evil at IS ? - I don't think so - and if they were to - they would have to commit around a dozen complete and really serious ****ups to even get close to where iFlop is today. Saying that, they could get there a little faster though if they employed some of the current administration morons rearranging the deck chairs oblivious to their demise.

« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2011, 09:03 »
0
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!

« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2011, 09:23 »
0
iStock and Shutterstock have felt different to me from the beginning.  iStock was always locked down, changing the submission rules frequently and to my mind arbitrarily.  Their emphasis on exclusive suppliers at the expense of independents rubbed me the wrong way, as did their painful upload process (made so much worse with the introduction of their controlled vocabulary) and their specific and changing demands regarding releases.  Their community always felt a little cultish, and their control unsettling.  Shutterstock was the opposite: more relaxed, more accepting, less contentious.

Yeah, it could all change.  Maybe Shutterstock will sell out one day, and the new owners will abandon suppliers' good will for short term gains as iStock's did.  But I'm going to hope that won't happen, and trust in Jon and his management team to look to enlightened self-interest, assuming their basic decency isn't enough to keep them from following iStock into the abyss.

« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2011, 09:45 »
0
I hope that SS will notice how the sites screwing the contributors most have plummeted.

helix7

« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2011, 10:00 »
0
SS has been on a different trajectory from istock for a long time now, so I'd think they will remain so. When istock was wasting money on silly perks, swag, and an in-house masseuse, SS kept things simple and just offered simple services with no unnecessary junk. istock spent tons on "improvements" to the site that only caused more problems, while SS hasn't changed the site much at all over the years and everyone still loves it because it just works. SS adapts to changing standards (they were one of the first to accept EPS10 vector files) while istock remains the lone hold-out on EPS10. They just finished a big office renovation in their NYC headquarters, so that suggests the bank accounts are fairly healthy.

They're very different companies, on very different paths. That's not to say that someday SS might be in a very different position and change course, but right now it's hard to imagine them screwing themselves by screwing us. Right now, they're better than that.

« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2011, 10:15 »
0
If SS is acquired by another company, things would probably get worse for contributors, but otherwise I can't see why Jon Oringer and company would suddenly take a turn on the dark side. They've been successful for a while and other than a rather poor track record on answering contributor support requests, and the blow up over taxes for non-US contributors (which I wasn't part of, but recall some real heat in these forums) you can't really fault them much.

Let's hope H&F stays well away :)

rubyroo

« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2011, 10:37 »
0
Yes, I agree with these good people.  SS feels like a steady ship as long  as Jon Oringer is at the helm.  iStock has always felt too susceptible to changes in the weather.

In the words of Katherine Hepburn, I feel that SS is yar.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2011, 11:08 »
0
"Evil" sites have a very long track of bad behaviour, such as lowering commissions, censoring forums, playing tricks on currency exchange, tweaking the search results to favour some authors and so on.

Shutterstock never did anything of that, so I am reasonably confident that they won't change as long as the management stays the same. Even more since they clearly understand what happened to their competitors.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of a single big site - even if it is the best possible - so uploading to a lot of sites (including minor ones) it the best thing we can do for our own future, besides earning a (small) additional revenue.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 11:13 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

lagereek

« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2011, 11:10 »
0
No! I dont think so, they have seen that it doesnt lead anywhere, just troubles, bad publicity, etc.

« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2011, 11:26 »
0
Who says that they are not already as "evil"?  ;)

SS did a good job of spreading the subscription model to all the other sites. Also, they supposedly only pay about 30%. Those aren't necessarily things to brag about. There's things to like about SS (mostly money), but I don't really hold them as a shining model of what a micro site should be.

« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2011, 12:44 »
0
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!

Who says that they are not already as "evil"?  ;)

SS did a good job of spreading the subscription model to all the other sites. Also, they supposedly only pay about 30%. Those aren't necessarily things to brag about. There's things to like about SS (mostly money), but I don't really hold them as a shining model of what a micro site should be.


I agree with both of you on the points above.

It does not make SS saints because they have the lucky opportunity of benefiting from IS's greed.  If you are fortunate to be on one of SS's healthy servers sales are good. I think SS has a long way to go.  To start they need to have consistent fair reviews and they need to do something about their mangled server and search engine problems.  And I think most sites participate in their own version of best match disease to increase sales including SS.

It looks to me like they are about to implode. SS continues with the patchworked and inadequate repairs; as the database, mangled search engine, best match disease and display problems grow . Does any of the previous show respect for the submitters? I think this post in a bug thread says it all, they are happy with a site that is running on 3 pistons and they are not too concerned with the previous problems if they are not affecting their own bottom line.  As long as the income generated from our images is good for them, they are not upset if these bugs affect some but not all of its submitters.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196&start=150
Quote from: forumguru
Thanks for the updates.

We are looking into the duplicate images but this tends to be an issue that corrects itself. As far as we can see, it is not having any effect on the search experience but if you notice otherwise, please alert us and let us know which search term you're concerned about so that we can investigate further.

As for images missing from search, please continue to provide updates on this thread. Having a few extra eyes on the situation would be a great help.

That being said, we believe the fix we've put in place is beginning to show results. It appears that many files have returned to search.

Thanks!


SS's coffers continue to grow and Jon and his staff are enjoying the $$$, yet when was the last time they gave submitters a raise?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 13:09 by gbalex »

« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2011, 13:44 »
0
I think there's more than enough present screwing going on and I don't wanna even think about the future (screwing) ;) . I think there's enough of negativity going on here and would be best to focus on the positive at least once in a while ;)

He heee.... I am totally with you - I don't want to think about the future screwing too! :) Current screwing is quite enough :)

« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2011, 14:29 »
0
SS has been on a different trajectory from istock for a long time now, so I'd think they will remain so. When istock was wasting money on silly perks, swag, and an in-house masseuse, SS kept things simple and just offered simple services with no unnecessary junk. istock spent tons on "improvements" to the site that only caused more problems, while SS hasn't changed the site much at all over the years and everyone still loves it because it just works. SS adapts to changing standards (they were one of the first to accept EPS10 vector files) while istock remains the lone hold-out on EPS10. They just finished a big office renovation in their NYC headquarters, so that suggests the bank accounts are fairly healthy.

They're very different companies, on very different paths. That's not to say that someday SS might be in a very different position and change course, but right now it's hard to imagine them screwing themselves by screwing us. Right now, they're better than that.

SS has in-house masseuses and free breakfasts.

wut

« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2011, 14:56 »
0
Who says that they are not already as "evil"?  ;)

SS did a good job of spreading the subscription model to all the other sites. Also, they supposedly only pay about 30%. Those aren't necessarily things to brag about. There's things to like about SS (mostly money), but I don't really hold them as a shining model of what a micro site should be.

They're really paying only 20-30% for ODs and single sales. I didn't do the calculations for ELs, sub royalties are supposed to be a lot lower on average. I still think SS is the best site, has more traffic than any other, but when it comes to royalties they're below average. That being said, what's most important to me are the absolute earnings and that's where they deliver. They could raise the royalties a bit or introduce image exclusivity and pay 50% more. They'd kill half of the agencies with that, making IS just a tiny player compared to them

« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2011, 16:55 »
0
SS's coffers continue to grow and Jon and his staff are enjoying the $$$, yet when was the last time they gave submitters a raise?

I suspect that Jon takes a more holistic view regarding our incomes. I don't know about you but my earnings from SS are up roughly 40% from a year ago with very little growth in my portfolio. Even more from 2 years ago. That counts as 'a raise' in my books.

The growth has come from adding new products and increasing the customer base and that makes for a far more stable business model than Istock's crude policy of ever-increasing prices (which is obviously unsustainable). I don't blame SS for not increasing prices in today's climate and clearly the business plan is working very nicely.

Back to the OP. In Jon we trust. I think we'll be just fine unless and until he sells the business.


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2011, 17:27 »
0
If I am reading the OP correctly, there seems to be an assumption that Shutterstock is just now becoming a top player, and therefore is likely to change their behavior toward contributors.  I am afraid I have to disagree.  SS has been one of the top two sites in the business pretty much since its inception.  If they were going to get greedy and screw contributors, they would have already done it.

Only way I can see SS going down the same road as Istock is if they are bought out.  And hopefully by then the smoldering ashes of the sites that let their greed and hubris get the best of them will stand as a cautionary tale. 

« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2011, 17:39 »
0
They're really paying only 20-30% for ODs and single sales. I didn't do the calculations for ELs, sub royalties are supposed to be a lot lower on average. I still think SS is the best site, has more traffic than any other, but when it comes to royalties they're below average.

What it the average, then? At iSTock it's probably 20% overall but nearer 16% for independents, at Fotolia it's probably less than that. So among the three market leaders SS would be above average. The other sites are far less important.

« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2011, 17:50 »
0
The other sites are far less important.

...and that kids is why we can't have anything nice.  ;D

helix7

« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2011, 19:06 »
0
SS has in-house masseuses and free breakfasts.

No way... Really?

Well if that's true, I'd hope that SS would cut the perks if things got to the point where they needed to slow spending. Before they cut contributor rates. The real kick in the teeth of the istock cuts was they they made no internal cuts to save money and relied solely on contributors to absorb the cut-backs.

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2011, 19:18 »
0

No

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2011, 19:22 »
0
Soon or latter,yes I'm sure it's gonna happen. It's only a matter of time like the rest of the big companies around the globe.
C'mon do you think they have sympathy for us.

« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2011, 19:30 »
0
SS has in-house masseuses and free breakfasts.

No way... Really?

Well if that's true, I'd hope that SS would cut the perks if things got to the point where they needed to slow spending. Before they cut contributor rates. The real kick in the teeth of the istock cuts was they they made no internal cuts to save money and relied solely on contributors to absorb the cut-backs.

If Getty hadn't had to cough up $500million to H&F I don't think there'd have been anything unsustainable about iStock's business at all. It was paying the piper that caused all the trouble...

« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2011, 22:09 »
0
As long as SS is happy to only make money hand over fist with 20-30% payout to contributors they can avoid making any evil changes. If they start losing market share to something like stinkstock or they get bought out then all bets are off. I agree if IS was still going it alone they could have continued w/o any of the unsustainable whining and commission cuts they have made.

« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2011, 22:58 »
0
SS has in-house masseuses and free breakfasts.


No way... Really?

Well if that's true, I'd hope that SS would cut the perks if things got to the point where they needed to slow spending. Before they cut contributor rates. The real kick in the teeth of the istock cuts was they they made no internal cuts to save money and relied solely on contributors to absorb the cut-backs.


Yes Really

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=o46KVfwz,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job
"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=oIjWVfwC,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job
"Search Engineer

We have a lot of challenging problems ahead of us, including:

    Helping customers find the images theyre looking for as fast as possible.
    Providing recommendations based on a customers searches, social graph, and other factors.
    Developing a framework to support rapid development of dynamic ranking algorithms.
    Creating a massively parallelized and real-time indexing process.
   Tracking search analytics and automatically acting on the results.

Our search engine is built on Perl and Solr.  Ideally you will have previous experience working with Solr and programming in Java. Being a JVM or Perl guru is an added bonus.  All candidates should have experience working on search engines and solving problems with large datasets."
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 23:06 by gbalex »

helix7

« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2011, 23:00 »
0

Thanks for that. Not sure I understand why you bolded certain things, though.


« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2011, 01:44 »
0
I don't think so.... SS is seating quietly and gain more and more market share because others (like IS and FT) are visible ''braking their necks''. So... i don't see the reason to ''go evil''.

Microbius

« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2011, 03:06 »
0
If SS is acquired by another company, things would probably get worse for contributors, but otherwise I can't see why Jon Oringer and company would suddenly take a turn on the dark side. They've been successful for a while and other than a rather poor track record on answering contributor support requests, and the blow up over taxes for non-US contributors (which I wasn't part of, but recall some real heat in these forums) you can't really fault them much.

Let's hope H&F stays well away :)

I agree overall they are very good to contributors and are unlikely to get worse. They could get even better though.
First up would be getting a better control of copyright issues in their collection. There are just too many people uploading other people's work for sale on SS compared to IStock for example. Whenever I start looking into any copyright violation on the site I find several others, sometimes whole portfolios, in minutes.

There's a legal blow up just waiting to happen. I mean clients are downloading this stuff and using it in good faith, what's going too happen the first time a big company gets sued by Getty for using their images illegally, then it turns out they downloaded the stuff from a thief on SS?
Their approach to this seems really inconsistent, sometimes you get portfolio closures for really dubious reasons, and sometimes obvious violations can be overlooked for months or not acted on at all. They need more, or better trained, staff on this.

Once this issue is sorted, it's all gravy.

helix7

« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2011, 07:57 »
0
I agree overall they are very good to contributors and are unlikely to get worse. They could get even better though.
First up would be getting a better control of copyright issues in their collection. There are just too many people uploading other people's work for sale on SS compared to IStock for example...

One of the few things istock does that I really like is requiring illustrators to upload some sort of proof that they created the image. They don't do it for everything, stuff that looks like it was entirely created on-screen gets a pass. But anything that looks like it was the result of a sketch, drawing, paint, or any source material or other reference requires that you upload those source materials as well to prove that you're the owner of them. And even in some cases where the work is purely screen-based, they still question it sometimes.

I think this policy is smart, and it seems to work for istock. I don't mind it. It's not a big deal to scan and upload some sketches or take a few screenshots along the way in creating an image. If I'm going to spend a couple of hours creating something, it's worthwhile to document the process with a few screengrabs so I can prove that it's my work and I own it. Especially in vector work, where we're essentially giving buyers the equivalent of a RAW file. Source material could prove useful if someone tried to accuse me of stealing someone else's work. In cases where it's one person's word against another's, source material and screengrabs can prove a case.

I'd love to see SS implement something like this as well. Not sure what the solution is for photographers, but for illustrators, this works.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2011, 08:42 »
0

Thanks for that. Not sure I understand why you bolded certain things, though.

I guess he's highlighted the same areas some people have issues with iStock about.

wut

« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2011, 09:41 »
0
They're really paying only 20-30% for ODs and single sales. I didn't do the calculations for ELs, sub royalties are supposed to be a lot lower on average. I still think SS is the best site, has more traffic than any other, but when it comes to royalties they're below average.

What it the average, then? At iSTock it's probably 20% overall but nearer 16% for independents, at Fotolia it's probably less than that. So among the three market leaders SS would be above average. The other sites are far less important.

I was talking about credit percentages and those are higher at all sites except IS (or equal in the worst case, I think FT starts at 20% as well). And AFAIK DT roughly equals FT and for some ppl 123RF is becoming a big player, in my case it brings me more than DT and FT combined. And they pay me 50% ;) . So with sales increasing at such level, they'll soon be me 2nd earner and that wouldn't be possible with 20-30% royalites.

And please explain why on earth they should earn more than we, that do most of the work anyway. And pls come up with something better than this is a business, a matter of supply and demand yadda yadda ;)

ETA: Can you imagine SS earnings with 50% royalties? And subs from 35-50c? :o
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 09:46 by wut »

« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2011, 14:44 »
0
For me, the management of the two sites has been completely different from the start. On the one hand you have a site dedicate to hierarchy (children's coloured cannisters, forum hammers, exclusives vs non-exclusives).

On the other, you have a flat hierarchy (functionally no forum administrators, no visible signs of contributor superiority).

On the one hand you have a site culture which abhors dissent so much that contributor's comments have been removed at the slightest provocation. Or worse, banning for the contributor.

On the other, you have a more relaxed, open to criticism culture, and therefore management style.

On the one hand you have a management which encouraged a cult like who yay corporate culture. On the other you have a hand off management approach.

Could SS turn out to be as evil as IS. Sure, it's possible. But they would need to have a complete turn-around in corporate culture and get a great dollop of management paranoia before that happened.

To answer the question properly anyway, one would need to have a precise definition of what corporate evil is anyway.

« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2011, 15:08 »
0
For me, the management of the two sites has been completely different from the start...
True. To add to your list:
iStock rejected whole classes of images because they didn't fit iStock's idea of itself as an art gallery, or something. For example, all vectors consisting primarily of text (e.g. a word cloud, or a business form) were rejected as a matter of policy (although many such images were in fact accepted when submitted by iStock Pets). Those images, rejected by IS, have earned hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for SS.

On the other hand, IS accepted raster illustrations with text as main element (e.g. 3D renders), but insisted that 3D renders be of models created entirely by the submitter. No use of the millions of high-quality models for sale for the purpose of creating commercial images was allowed by IS. Again, such images have made millions of dollars in revenues for SS.

iStock has never been able to figure out whether it is a snotty-middle-school-girls'-clique-slash-art-gallery or a business. SS has not seemed to suffer from that problem.

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2011, 15:43 »
0
For me, the management of the two sites has been completely different from the start...
True. To add to your list:
iStock rejected whole classes of images because they didn't fit iStock's idea of itself as an art gallery, or something. For example, all vectors consisting primarily of text (e.g. a word cloud, or a business form) were rejected as a matter of policy (although many such images were in fact accepted when submitted by iStock Pets). Those images, rejected by IS, have earned hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for SS.

On the other hand, IS accepted raster illustrations with text as main element (e.g. 3D renders), but insisted that 3D renders be of models created entirely by the submitter. No use of the millions of high-quality models for sale for the purpose of creating commercial images was allowed by IS. Again, such images have made millions of dollars in revenues for SS.

iStock has never been able to figure out whether it is a snotty-middle-school-girls'-clique-slash-art-gallery or a business. SS has not seemed to suffer from that problem.
+1

« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2011, 16:06 »
0
.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 11:00 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2011, 20:16 »
0
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!

Right.  Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell.  Oringer is a businessman, too.


« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2011, 20:30 »
0
Right.  Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell.  Oringer is a businessman, too.

Wrong. Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early. Oringer is 10x the businessman that Livingstone was (and is quite possibly 100x wealthier too). Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M. I reckon you'd need to pony-up close to $1B before you could even begin discussions to buy SS/BigStock.

« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2011, 08:21 »
0
Right.  Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell.  Oringer is a businessman, too.

Wrong. Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early. Oringer is 10x the businessman that Livingstone was (and is quite possibly 100x wealthier too). Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M. I reckon you'd need to pony-up close to $1B before you could even begin discussions to buy SS/BigStock.

My point is still valid regardless. You may be right in your thoughts tho.

« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2011, 18:32 »
0
Shutterstock has been hugely successful for several years. This fear that they will become "evil" overnight is totally unfounded. They have been #1 in subscriptions since the beginning, and at least #2 in overall sales for years.

During that time, they have raised their review standards by a large amount. And while I find the increased rejection rate to be troubling, they have never once treated me with disrespect. I consider Shutterstock to be one of my favorite agencies to work with, and they have always delivered strong earnings without a holier than thou attitude.

Jon gets it. He knows how to treat buyers. Calgary is getting exactly what it has asked for.

Do a Google blog search and you will find tons of buyers complaining about iStockphoto. You won't find nearly as many complaining about Dreamstime or Shutterstock.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 18:34 by djpadavona »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2011, 20:06 »
0
Right.  Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell.  Oringer is a businessman, too.

Wrong. Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early. Oringer is 10x the businessman that Livingstone was (and is quite possibly 100x wealthier too). Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M. I reckon you'd need to pony-up close to $1B before you could even begin discussions to buy SS/BigStock.

isn't the president of SS now some guy who used to work at weightwatchers? seems he's one of these leap frog execs, since Jon steeped away as president in 2010. I like that Jon Oringer is a photographer first. I don't know him, but I know his work fairly well (and like it) and think he seems like a successful, interesting person. make no mistake, he's a businessman and I think he's probably got a price. I don't see the point of vilifying entrepreneurs who sell their companies. How many of you still sell images on the 'evil' sites? just a little hypocritical, no? $ is $.....

gostwyck, is Jon Oringer your little cousin or something? you sure like SS...it seems unlikely that you would evangelize anything this strongly
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 20:07 by SNP »

« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2011, 20:18 »
0
Actually the fact that the President was at weigtwatchers for over 8 years, makes him a good candidate for leading a microstock site. Weightwatchers is based on thousands of small time, very local entrepreneurs who although they work at their own risk have the support of an international franchise behind them.

So if he was successful at growing the weight watchers business (was he?? - I have no idea?), he should have very good operational experience with an international freelancing sales team.

But this is just from looking at his CV on the internet. I have no idea if he has had any impact on the SS business.

The concept of "finding and growing the sales warrior diamonds" is something he should be familiar with.

« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2011, 21:08 »
0
isn't the president of SS now some guy who used to work at weightwatchers? seems he's one of these leap frog execs, since Jon steeped away as president in 2010. I like that Jon Oringer is a photographer first. I don't know him, but I know his work fairly well (and like it) and think he seems like a successful, interesting person. make no mistake, he's a businessman and I think he's probably got a price. I don't see the point of vilifying entrepreneurs who sell their companies. How many of you still sell images on the 'evil' sites? just a little hypocritical, no? $ is $.....

gostwyck, is Jon Oringer your little cousin or something? you sure like SS...it seems unlikely that you would evangelize anything this strongly

You're taking my point slightly out of context. Mantis stated that "times were right and ripe [for IS] to sell" and it was obvious then and even more obvious now that it was a really stupid time to sell. I like Oringer because he's a good businessman and has never broken a promise or done anything other than enhance the earnings of contributors. 'Back in the day' we used to converse regularly via email too but we've both been too busy to do that for some years. Even better than that he appears to be in it for the long game and is therefore making appropriate decisions. He could have sold out years ago and made millions but I think he's got his eyes on billions instead. Generally speaking you don't sell a business when it is still growing at an astronomical rate, basically because it is almost impossible to assess the true value for either buyer or seller. It will nearly always be undersold. Can you imagine __ Istock for just $50M? Do me a favour. My cat would have paid more than that for it.

« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2011, 21:44 »
0
What exactly makes you think that Bruce thought this was the best offer he could get? Or that money was even his biggest motivation in selling the business at that time?

Maybe Bruce bought a few successful stocks and now has 1000 times more money than before? Maybe he lost it all at the roulette table. Maybe he gave it all to charity? Again - who cares??

You adore Jon Oringer, youve had personal experience with him and find him inspirational - fine.

But you didnt build a stock site and somehow I think, that if you had made even 10 million dollars with any business deal you would not be selling stock images today.

Bruce went right on to market another place for artists and that place seems to be booming. Maybe he will do this for the next 20 years. Maybe he will leave tomorrow and go back to singing? Who knows?

It is just a strange thing to be so judgemental about someone who apparently knows how to succeed with what he wants to do.

Bashing Bruce doesnt make Jon Oringer look good, or clever, or "better" to me.  Different people, different lives, different choices. It doesnt make me "trust"  or believe in the Shutterstock business model.

If you are really Jons friend, I think you are doing him a disservice by constantly attacking Bruce. IMO, of course.

The sale happened 5 years ago, it is completely irrelevant today. Because nobody knows how the market had developed if Bruce had kept istock, and if  Getty had bought another site.

Only what the current managers of istock and Getty and ss etc...are doing is what is affecting the market now and us as photographers.

Business people live in the here and now. "What if he had done this or that..." doesnt pay my bills.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2011, 21:55 »
0
Actually the fact that the President was at weigtwatchers for over 8 years, makes him a good candidate for leading a microstock site. Weightwatchers is based on thousands of small time, very local entrepreneurs who although they work at their own risk have the support of an international franchise behind them.

So if he was successful at growing the weight watchers business (was he?? - I have no idea?), he should have very good operational experience with an international freelancing sales team.

But this is just from looking at his CV on the internet. I have no idea if he has had any impact on the SS business.

The concept of "finding and growing the sales warrior diamonds" is something he should be familiar with.

not to digress too much, but doesn't an organization like weightwatchers only work because their program doesn't? they secure die-hard followers who believe they must remain members in order for the weight to stay off...when in fact the program is designed to have very limited success in order to keep members in programs over time? pretty slimy....

corporations are expected to make money. we live in a screwed up global economy where the only measure of success according to lenders is persistent growth and the projection of growth. consistent growth requires that suppliers and customers are those who get shafted first in order to keep those making money consistently making MORE money. all the microstock companies belong to the same club. differentiating between them, IMO, really trivializes the issues we face as contributors in the industry as a whole. there is no hero agency, nor is there a villain. the quests--for growth of individual contributor versus company profits-- seem diametrically opposed these days. marketing may be bringing in more sales on the whole, but the current model will ultimately make it more difficult to be successful as an individual contributor. at some point it means contributors will have to do something to protect our income. that movement will have to start from the top contributors and work its way down. if two or three of the major contributors were to make a drastic move, it would create a minor panic. if not a major one. the fact that they aren't making these types of drastic moves yet speaks to the real state of affairs, doesn't it?

« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2011, 22:01 »
0
What exactly makes you think that Bruce thought this was the best offer he could get? Or that money was even his biggest motivation in selling the business at that time?

Maybe Bruce bought a few successful stocks and now has 1000 times more money than before? Maybe he lost it all at the roulette table. Maybe he gave it all to charity? Again - who cares??

... blah, blah, blah. Maybe Brucie did this, maybe Brucie did that ... whatever. The truth is after selling Istock he became a Getty employee. Now he's an employee of Saatchi. Epic failure for a guy who found himself in prime position to have been worth hundreds of millions if not billions if only he had the nerve to hold out for it. Why isn't he promoting his own newest venture? Because he doesn't have one. Do you think Oringer will ever be an employee of anyone ... ever, ever again? Not a chance. Brucie blew his chance of becoming a true 'baron'.

« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2011, 22:12 »
0
there is no hero agency, nor is there a villain.

The only opinion which matters is the customer, and they are speaking loudly. Maybe if someone had listened to their concerns rather than banning them from their message forum, they would not be taking their business elsewhere?


« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2011, 22:30 »
0
actually I know quite a few people who joined ww and never got the weight back. however controlling body weight is a complex issue. if it was easy to solve with a solution that worked for everyone, the whole world wold be slim.

I was not judging the ww program, just that anyone in charge of a franchise business that had mostly small time entrepreneurs as business partners would have useful, comparable experience to supporting digital entrepreneurs who are connected globally through the internet and usually work alone or in very small teams.

This is different from say a business manager who was in charge of the Mc Donalds franchise, where the franchisees are running larger businesses, up to 40 employees, the business was dependent on the local market etc...

I mean if you want to hire an outsider to lead a microstock operation - where do you find a suitable manager?

anyway...

However I disagree with you that all microsites and their relationships with their business partners are the same.

The quality of a business partner I work with can be tremendously influenced by whoever is in charge of the place. A highly successful company can be ruined in a few months by an incompetent manager. Or it can blossom with the right one. So I believe this thread, if it looks at the behaviour and experiences contributors have had with the different agencies is very valuable.

But to differentiate into "evil or good", that makes no sense to me at all. After all - are the photographers all good and never "evil"? Do they not do everything they can to maximize their profit?

Just because they are small businesses doesnt make them "victims" of "large cooperations" or makes them more ethical in any way.  They are not even more vulnerable, their small size makes them much more flexible than the agencies. They can sell wherever they want, to whomever they want - globally.

Their success just depends on the skills of the digital entrepreneur himself (herself).

But I dont want to move too much off topic, Ill let you guys continue and watch from the sidelines. I have very limted experience with agencies outside of istock/getty.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #48 on: November 23, 2011, 22:35 »
0

The quality of a business partner I work with can be tremendously influenced by whoever is in charge of the place. A highly successful company can be ruined in a few months by an incompetent manager. Or it can blossom with the right one. So I believe this thread, if it looks at the behaviour and experiences contributors have had with the different agencies is very valuable.

But to differentiate into "evil or good", that makes no sense to me at all. After all - are the photographers all good and never "evil"? Do they not do everything they can to maximize their profit?

Ill let you guys continue and watch from the sidelines. I have very limted experience with agencies outside of istock/getty.

don't watch from the sidelines. I like your posts. I agree with what you've said up ^. I was just being a smarta** about ww. but, I do find it fishy on the whole when an executive bounces from company to company. I think the president of SS (Thilo) was with a few, including theladders something or other before getting on board with SS. contributors seem to feel they have a relationship with Oringer, but the corp president has considerable decision-making power. in any case, the vilifying is pointless IMO.

« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2011, 22:43 »
0
"Do you think Oringer will ever be an employee of anyone ... ever, ever again? Not a chance. Brucie blew his chance of becoming a true 'baron'."

You seem to have a very bizarre view of people in general. A "true baron", really? Which computer game promotes such nonsense? And being a business manager is more "valuable" than other types of work? Next time you visit your doctor or go to a hospital, please remind the people there what failures they all are...

If Mr. Oringer actually talks and acts the way you write, he doesnt sound like someone I would want to do business with. I sincerly hope he is a real businessman and not a little boy who needs a Ferrari at his doorstep to give him self confidence.

I am sorry, but I am too old for the games of "mine is bigger than yours" fantasies.

I wonder what Mr. Oringer thinks, if he reads what you write about him. Or Shutterstock. Because this kind of talk is not good for the reputation of their company.

They have representatives who read here, dont they?

« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2011, 00:18 »
0
gostwyck doesnt need any help/lawyer or other but he is 100% right and I am not understanding where he is talking "badly" about Oringer or SS or Bruce.. he is just saying the real truth about some actions that they have made and how they stand now.. quite frankly I love these kind of topics.. dont understand why there is the need of fight.. keep it cool and informative

lagereek

« Reply #51 on: November 24, 2011, 01:23 »
0
Well Luis my boy,  " no need for fight" quote. coming from you thats a revelation. You must have seen the light? :D

« Reply #52 on: November 24, 2011, 03:30 »
0
The sale happened 5 years ago, it is completely irrelevant today.

Sorry, but no it isn't.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2011, 09:36 »
0
Hey everybody, why don't we form a union or a stock site?  ;)

Microbius

« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2011, 09:55 »
0
Hey everybody, why don't we form a union or a stock site?  ;)
lol  :D

rubyroo

« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2011, 09:58 »
0
<bangs head on table repeatedly>

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #56 on: November 24, 2011, 13:35 »
0
<bangs head on table repeatedly>

your avatar is funny, even though it is a little creepy too.

I don't think we can say that the sale of iStock is irrelevant. the details of the sale between Bruce and Getty may no longer be relevant (maybe that's what you meant Jasmin?). but the sale has completely shifted the iStock infrastructure. I wouldn't say in directions that are all bad. I think having a powerhouse corporation like Getty behind us has launched us into the stratosphere in terms of visibility. but the price for this is largely being footed by contributors. I'd say that's pretty relevant.


rubyroo

« Reply #57 on: November 24, 2011, 14:26 »
0
Awww.. I didn't mean for it to be creepy.  I'd never put headphones on a kitten myself, but I liked the idea of one getting down to some funky music.

« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2011, 15:22 »
0
How many here have experienced problems with new uploads and or drops in search engine placement for images with long term high RPI.  

Have you also been experiencing issues with missing images, double images in your port or search engine bugs such as images not searchable by their keywords or combinations of keywords?

If so, what issues are you seeing, how frequent are they occurring and how long has this been going on.

In the end if you are experiencing these problems do you think these issues are causing you to miss out on sales?  

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #59 on: November 24, 2011, 16:50 »
0
How many here have experienced problems with new uploads and or drops in search engine placement for images with long term high RPI.  

Have you also been experiencing issues with missing images, double images in your port or search engine bugs such as images not searchable by their keywords or combinations of keywords?

If so, what issues are you seeing, how frequent are they occurring and how long has this been going on.

In the end if you are experiencing these problems do you think these issues are causing you to miss out on sales?  

this reminds me of a telemarketing survey....

« Reply #60 on: November 25, 2011, 09:43 »
0
"I don't think we can say that the sale of iStock is irrelevant. the details of the sale between Bruce and Getty may no longer be relevant (maybe that's what you meant Jasmin?). but the sale has completely shifted the iStock infrastructure. "

I meant that it is the decision of the CURRENT management that is giving us the results we see. They could have decided to continue it along the path Bruce set up.

And most of the people I know are earning a lot more now than in 2006 and those who are good at shooting vetta and agency are doing extremely well. And I don't see any site out there that can replace istock's earning power. If you go independent, you still have to sign up with at least 4 agencies to replace what you got from as an exclusive. If the other business managers are so much better, why haven't they overtaken istock? They've had 5 years since the sale...?

I see a lot of blame being shifted to Bruce, which IMO deflects from the responsibility of the current management.

They, and they alone are responsible for how the business is being run.

I am sorry, but all that nostalgia about Bruce wont get us anyhwere. And again, nobody knows if he really would have continued to be successful with istock if Getty had bought a different stock site. He wasnt the only player in the market and getty was out to buy a company. You cannot just take a point of time in the past and "extrapolate a better present". That is wishful thinking.

Also for me being part of Getty is a very positive thing, because I really enjoy how well my portfolio is doing over there. This is money and an opportunity that I would not have had, if this sale had not taken place.

Again - those in charge NOW are responsible. Noone else.

I also dont buy into this "but Getty always behaves like that"- getty is a business. It has owners. It has managers. Nobody is stopping them from evolving as a company, bringing in new technology, hiring new managers with a solid background in growing a business on the internet. Every single day those managers take decisions. Every day they have to realign their business with the current market situation.

It is not a law of nature for getty "to behave in a certain way"

They can take their company any direction they like. Or any directions the owners want it to go. It is a free enterprise, not a state run bureau.

So that is why for me, the past is over, and whatever Bruce did or did not do makes no difference to me.

I focus on the here and now, always.  
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 10:04 by cobalt »

« Reply #61 on: November 25, 2011, 10:10 »
0
my ipad does not allow me to scroll down, so I'll add it here:

only with my own site do I have full control. As soon as I decide to work through an agency, I give up control. I will only do this if it makes financial sense. And of course I have to always follow what the management does and if I believe that their decisions will bring me more money.

If I believe they're decisions will not bring in more money, I have to think of a different solution, or finally open my own store. Of course opening your own place and driving customers there will take 3 years, like any new business.

But it is always my choice.

Obviously if for instance Shutterstock or any other site reached a level that made it clear they have reached the earning power of istock, I might move my portfolio.

Many others are moving now. Their decision.

But again nobody knows if the growth of ss will last.

« Reply #62 on: November 25, 2011, 11:01 »
0
... They could have decided to continue it along the path Bruce set up.

I see a lot of blame being shifted to Bruce, which IMO deflects from the responsibility of the current management.

I am sorry, but all that nostalgia about Bruce wont get us anyhwere. And again, nobody knows if he really would have continued to be successful with istock if Getty had bought a different stock site. He wasnt the only player in the market and getty was out to buy a company. You cannot just take a point of time in the past and "extrapolate a better present". That is wishful thinking.

So that is why for me, the past is over, and whatever Bruce did or did not do makes no difference to me.

I focus on the here and now, always. 

Yeah, right! I thought you were the one who keeps mentioning Livingstone and telling us how wonderful he was. You even brought his name up 4x in your post telling how irrelevant he is now and how you supposedly only focus "on the here and now".

« Reply #63 on: November 25, 2011, 15:14 »
0
deleted - why waste my time...
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 15:37 by cobalt »

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #64 on: November 26, 2011, 11:16 »
0
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!

And that is why businesses like that eventually collapse.

antistock

« Reply #65 on: November 26, 2011, 12:41 »
0
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!

And that is why businesses like that eventually collapse.

i wonder how much can they squeeze more out of their contributors ... is the 85% cut taken by IS not enough already ?

selling good photos for as low as 1 credit ? dollar bins ? free photos of the day ? and the list goes on....

i can't remember any other industry where you only keep 15% of a sale.
Apple is doing the same thing as stock agencies but is more than happy keeping its 30% cut.
how come stock agencies pushed up to 85% and will move quickly to 90% ?

and of course SS will follow suit and become greedy, and who can blame them, stock photographers are simply taken by the balls, it's a dying industry however you look at it, only the top agencies will stay afloat, at least for a while.

let's face it, the market is simply oversaturated and soon all these millions of shiny microstock images will not be worth a dime and given away for free or next to nothing.

SS was probably the first realizing this and grabbing the lion's share in the subs market.

anyone can produce decent or "good enough" stock images nowadays, it's a fact and it's getting easier and easier for the amateurs to reach the miminum requirements to join the biz, all they need is an entry level DSLR, a 18-55 kit lens, a laptop with Lightroom, and an internet connection.

i can't see much future for this industry, no matter if with IS or SS or whatever next.

exclusive images of celebrities, news, and sports will always raise high prices, but the stock stuff sold today on the micros is a dead man walking, why do you think Getty is dumping most of his outdated RM archive into RF microstock and subs ? they know pretty well what's going on and unsurprisingly they also test the waters with Flickr collection and push for more creative and weird imagery.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #66 on: November 26, 2011, 15:23 »
0

anyone can produce decent or "good enough" stock images nowadays, it's a fact and it's getting easier and easier for the amateurs to reach the miminum requirements to join the biz, all they need is an entry level DSLR, a 18-55 kit lens, a laptop with Lightroom, and an internet connection.

i can't see much future for this industry

Judging from my list of 70 referred photographers at SS, only 6 of which passed the test, and only 4 of which are somehow active, I wouldn't say it's so easy.

It's true that anyone can buy a dSLR nowadays, but there's a lot more to a successful career in photography, be it stock or else. And people will always need images, so - although possibly different from microstock as we know it - there's a future in this industry.

I basically agree with your other points though, especially the need to push more creative and weird pictures. It's a market that agencies are overlooking based on a supposed lcv which isn't true imo.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 15:29 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
14923 Views
Last post April 22, 2018, 07:19
by namussi

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors