Author Topic: Do you think SS will one day be as 'evil' as IS/FT? (Read 16108 times)

gbalex · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2011, 22:58 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 17, 2011, 19:06

Quote from: gbalex on November 17, 2011, 14:29
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 they’re looking for as fast as possible.
   Providing recommendations based on a customer’s 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."

helix7 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2011, 23:00 »

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

nicku · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2011, 01:44 »

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 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 17, 2011, 10:15

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 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 18, 2011, 03:06

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 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 18, 2011, 08:42 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 17, 2011, 23:00

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 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 17, 2011, 17:39

Quote from: wut on November 17, 2011, 14:56
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?

CommuniCat · « **Reply #32 on:** November 18, 2011, 14:44 »

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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #33 on:** November 18, 2011, 15:08 »

Quote from: alistaircotton on November 18, 2011, 14:44

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 »

Quote from: michaeldb on November 18, 2011, 15:08

Quote from: alistaircotton on November 18, 2011, 14:44
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

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #35 on:** November 18, 2011, 16:06 »

Mantis · « **Reply #36 on:** November 18, 2011, 20:16 »

Quote from: ProArtwork on November 17, 2011, 09:03

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** November 18, 2011, 20:30 »

Quote from: Mantis on November 18, 2011, 20:16

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #38 on:** November 19, 2011, 08:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 18, 2011, 20:30

Quote from: Mantis on November 18, 2011, 20:16
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.

djpadavona · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2011, 18:32 »

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.

SNP · « **Reply #40 on:** November 23, 2011, 20:06 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 18, 2011, 20:30

Quote from: Mantis on November 18, 2011, 20:16
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

cobalt · « **Reply #41 on:** November 23, 2011, 20:18 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #42 on:** November 23, 2011, 21:08 »

Quote from: SNP on November 23, 2011, 20:06

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #43 on:** November 23, 2011, 21:44 »

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, you´ve had personal experience with him and find him inspirational - fine.

But you didn´t 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 doesn´t make Jon Oringer look good, or clever, or "better" to me. Different people, different lives, different choices. It doesn´t make me "trust" or believe in the Shutterstock business model.

If you are really Jon´s 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..." doesn´t pay my bills.

SNP · « **Reply #44 on:** November 23, 2011, 21:55 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 20:18

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?

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** November 23, 2011, 22:01 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 21:44

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'.

djpadavona · « **Reply #46 on:** November 23, 2011, 22:12 »

Quote from: SNP on November 23, 2011, 21:55

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?

cobalt · « **Reply #47 on:** November 23, 2011, 22:30 »

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 doesn´t 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 don´t want to move too much off topic, I´ll let you guys continue and watch from the sidelines. I have very limted experience with agencies outside of istock/getty.

SNP · « **Reply #48 on:** November 23, 2011, 22:35 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 23, 2011, 22:30

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?

I´ll 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.

cobalt · « **Reply #49 on:** November 23, 2011, 22:43 »

"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 doesn´t 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, don´t they?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do you think SS will one day be as 'evil' as IS/FT? (Read 16108 times)

gbalex

helix7

nicku

Microbius

helix7

ShadySue

wut

CommuniCat

michaeldb

Cogent Marketing

Microstock Posts

Mantis

gostwyck

Mantis

djpadavona

SNP

cobalt

gostwyck

cobalt

SNP

gostwyck

djpadavona

cobalt

SNP

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors