pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!  (Read 11897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 06:21 »
+71
With a headline like that I was expecting announcement of a raise.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 06:29 by Shelma1 »

Dook

« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2015, 06:25 »
+5
Great news! Will we be able to contribute our editorial work to  Rex for more exposure and sales in news category?

« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2015, 06:49 »
+59
How is this actually exciting for the regular contributor?  How does it affect us?

« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2015, 06:51 »
+8
Its very interesting, I have never really shot editorial photos, because I didnt have the impression that it sells as well as creative stock.

But now with direct upload via mobile phone,maybe Ill try it again.

So will editorial images from SS be chosen for REX and mirrored there?

How high are the prices on REX and how much can the artists earn, if content should be chosen for REX?

http://www.rexusa.com

ETA: I see some of you were faster...

« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2015, 07:23 »
+1
Getty tried to buy Rex in 2010 but were blocked by competition regulators.

http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/04/26/getty-images-buy-rex-features/

« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2015, 07:27 »
+7
Also - isn't Rex all RM ? Does that mean Shutterstock is moving into RM ?

Tror

« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2015, 07:41 »
+21
Good news! Thanks for the post Paul....

...for Contributors I would have hoped more for something like "SS gives a raise of 15% in royalties to its Contributors from next month on!" - after reading the "exciting" Headline :-)
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 07:48 by Tror »

MxR

« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2015, 08:43 »
+8
I thought the exciting news would be closing the bad joke of Bigstock (mixing worst of subscriptions with the worst of RC istockphoto) ... and more money ....

« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2015, 08:44 »
0
Are video files included?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2015, 09:25 »
0
Moved.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 09:28 by ruxpriencdiam »

« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2015, 09:58 »
+21
Thanks for the news - some more details would be appreciated.  This could be good, bad or neutral for contributors depending on how it is implemented.

If this means that Rex content will now be ingested into SS - as Getty did with their own content on iS - then for contributors it will be very bad.  Just more competition for the same buyers.  Please don't expect us to cheer if that is the case.

If the two companies will stay completely separate and the only difference is who owns them then for contributors it is probably neutral.

If this means that SS contributors will now be able to sell content RM on Rex via SS then it could be very good.  Many of us sell images RM on Alamy and another market for those images would be welcome.  In that case we will cheer.

Please let us know about what this means for contributors in practical terms (if known) so we will know whether to cheer or jeer.  Thanks.


Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2015, 10:01 »
+18
I fixed the grammar and added some possible additions in brackets:

"Hi Shutterstock Contributors,

Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ! Today were pleased to welcome to the Shutterstock family Rex Features, Europes largest independently owned photographic press agency, and PremiumBeat, a royalty-free music service with 5,000 curated music tracks from leading composers around the world.

Shutterstocks customers have been asking for an end-to-end solution that includes both commercial and editorial content. The acquisition of Rex is a decisive move into the editorial category, and underscores our mission to provide the worlds storytellers with all of the content and tools they need to bring their ideas to life. By adding a more robust editorial offering, including entertainment, news and sports imagery, Shutterstock is expanding to serve the full breadth of imagery needed by media companies and advertisers around the world. You, Shutterstock's contributors, will
[be facing stiffer competition with the flood of new images entering the Shutterstock library.]
[be invited to apply as Rex contributors.]
[have your editorial work automatically mirrored to Rex, giving it greater exposure to a worldwide audience with the possibility of larger royalties.]

The acquisition of PremiumBeat allows us to accelerate our progress in music by welcoming a strong and growing customer base, content library, and team to Shutterstock. Shutterstock music contributors will
[be facing stiffer competition.]
[be invited to apply as PremiumBeat contributors.]
[have your work automatically mirrored to PremiumBeat, giving it greater exposure to a worldwide audience with the possibility of larger royalties.]

[Most exciting of all, Shutterstock is raising royalties by 4% across the board. Happy New Year!]"

« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2015, 10:15 »
+3
LOL! You nailed it Shelma!  :D

« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2015, 10:36 »
0
Shutterstock widens its focus as it snaps up Rex Features agency - Financial Times

Meanwhile Jim Pickerell says there is speculation that Getty might sell it's editorial division.

« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2015, 10:41 »
+2
Shutterstocks customers have been asking for an end-to-end solution that
That's a big improvement, Shelma. Ah, the glories of a wee bit of punctuation!

I struggled to make sense of the original "asking for an end to end solution..."
Did it mean SS customers were seeking the demise of something called an "end solution"?

You, Shutterstock's contributors, will
[be facing stiffer competition with the flood of new images entering the Shutterstock library.]
[be invited to apply as Rex contributors.]
[have your editorial work automatically mirrored to Rex, giving it greater exposure to a worldwide audience with the possibility of larger royalties.]
Yep, that's definitely the information we need to understand the implications for us.


[Most exciting of all, Shutterstock is raising royalties by 4% across the board. Happy New Year!]"
Ya'think it could ever actually happen? Wow, that would really be "exciting news"!

« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2015, 10:48 »
0
Shutterstock widens its focus as it snaps up Rex Features agency - Financial Times

Meanwhile Jim Pickerell says there is speculation that Getty might sell it's editorial division.


Thank you for the link. Are there any indications this might go to SS as well?


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2015, 10:50 »
+3
Shutterstocks customers have been asking for an end-to-end solution that
That's a big improvement, Shelma. Ah, the glories of a wee bit of punctuation!
I struggled to make sense of the original "asking for an end to end solution..."
I interpreted it totally differently to everyone else here, and didn't even consider the alternative.
I interpreted Shutterstocks customers have been asking for an end-to-end solution that includes both commercial and editorial content. The acquisition of Rex is a decisive move into the editorial category... as meaning they had bought Rex and were going to move Rex's content into SS (as I interpreted end-to-end solution as meaning 'one-stop-shop') and sell previously fairly-priced RM editorial as RF editorial at dirt cheap SS prices.

I now understand that the alternative interpretion (that they have bought Rex and will run it in parallel with SS) is also valid, but don't see how that would meet that apparent customer demand.

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2015, 10:51 »
+4
Getty tried to buy Rex in 2010 but were blocked by competition regulators.

http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/04/26/getty-images-buy-rex-features/


Ironic, as SS seems now to be fast becoming a monopoly.

« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2015, 11:23 »
+4
When a close friend of mine has sold a world exclusive through hisownagency/SIPA/Rex/Getty, publishing eight picture and the cover of Rolling Stones, his roialties were 23 (twentythree) US Dollars, at the end of the chain. I'm not sure that the distribution of news photographs - that have a very short life - by SS could be economically convenient for photographers. When I shot for news in my town (I mean without trip expenses and without time expenditure to organize) I need to earn not less of 200$/day +taxes. May SS give me this sum?

« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2015, 11:46 »
+1
Shutterstock widens its focus as it snaps up Rex Features agency - Financial Times

Meanwhile Jim Pickerell says there is speculation that Getty might sell it's editorial division.


Thank you for the link. Are there any indications this might go to SS as well?


I don't know. Apart from Jim's site nobody else seems to be suggesting this. I haven't read his article - only the come-on. Maybe we should club together and buy 2 credits :)

Honestly - I could see the whole lot going to Shutterstock one way or another. It's a phenomenal company.

I am very curious whether they are going to be doing RM.

« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2015, 11:54 »
0
I have some credits left over on Jims site. the article is short but has a wealth of really interesting information. I dont want to spoil Jims income, so I dont feel free to share the details, but I believe there are some very interesting insights.

If editorial is really sold, then Getty will be a much smaller company than it is now. Personally I always thought that the editorial buyers where also buying a lot of creative stock as well.

So SS is moving in the right direction to become the dominant player and like others have said, it gives them a chance to get experience with RM as well.

« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2015, 12:02 »
+33
This is a forum for contributors, not Shutterstock shareholders. How is this exciting news for contributors?

« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2015, 13:04 »
+5
I'm certainly eager to learn more since in addition to some news, I shoot a lot of general editorial (travel, famous people) which I mostly license directly or via Alamy and a small agency in Germany. I've put a handful of editorial shots on SS over the years and they've done okay so this could be good news if it means that it will be attracting more editorial buyers there, especially newspapers and websites which have an insatiable appetite for images and pay peanuts these days anyway.

The fact that Rex images is RM is confusing, so please give us more info Paul from Shutterstock - thanks!

« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2015, 15:32 »
+3
I'm certainly eager to learn more since in addition to some news, I shoot a lot of general editorial (travel, famous people) which I mostly license directly or via Alamy and a small agency in Germany. I've put a handful of editorial shots on SS over the years and they've done okay so this could be good news if it means that it will be attracting more editorial buyers there, especially newspapers and websites which have an insatiable appetite for images and pay peanuts these days anyway.

The fact that Rex images is RM is confusing, so please give us more info Paul from Shutterstock - thanks!

so true the part about insatiable appetite but pay peanuts. actually they pay peanuts it's good, most say we use wire photos free and give you exposure credit. the last part makes me laugh as if we do not already have exposure being stock photographers.
reading the rest of you here i think it is bad for us, just a buildup to pls shareholders. hope the rest of you are wrong, for our sake :-\

« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2015, 15:49 »
+6

Uncle Pete

« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2015, 16:12 »
+6
The stock market new version:  http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Comments/Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+to+Acquire+Rex+Features+in+%2433M+Deal/10166678.html

Any time any company says "we have exciting news" be prepared for unexpected changes.

This could very well have nothing at all to do with us and be run as a separate division, selling to a different market segment.


« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2015, 16:18 »
+9
How is this actually exciting for the regular contributor?  How does it affect us?

I don't own stock, don't work for SS or Rex, and there's nothing in this that looks exciting to me. How will this deal make me more money?

« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2015, 16:35 »
+1

« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2015, 17:04 »
+7
Thank you for your interest about the news we shared this morning. We received a number of questions and hope to answer them here.

What this mean for our contributors:
In the immediate future, nothing will change for our commercial and editorial contributors. Please continue to submit content as you have and well continue to market and license your work. Our Red Carpet program will remain the same. We will continue to work with our editorial contributors to help you gain access to events. These acquisitions provide a wider audience for our commercial and editorial contributors. A broader audience means more views of your work which equals more downloads for you.


Will editorial images from Shutterstock also be available on Rex Features?
For the foreseeable future, Shutterstock editorial and Rex Features will run in parallel. This means that the images you submit to Shutterstock will remain on Shutterstock. Should plans change, we will keep you updated.

Where do the images on Rex Features come from and can I submit content?
Rex receives image submissions from freelancers, staff photographers and agencies around the world and covers red carpet events, celebrity photography, news, sports, and features. Rex also has an archive that stretches back to the early days of photography and shoots 'on set' exclusively for many TV shows.

Rex Features is rights managed?  Does that mean that Shutterstock is moving into RM licensing?
Rex currently licenses images for a single use rather than an unlimited number of uses. Shutterstock has no plans to change our current licensing structure.

What is the Rex Features pricing model?
Rex customers can either pay a fixed amount per image, or commit to a customized annual subscription.

Does Rex Features license footage?
Rex began producing and selling video over the last 18 months.

Will Shutterstock contributors have the ability to submit music tracks?
Currently, we are not accepting submissions to our music collection. We will keep you updated on progress.

Thanks,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations

« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2015, 17:19 »
+38
Thanks to SS VP Content Operations for returning to clarify some things - much appreciated.

In terms of the news itself, however, the way it feels to me (as a supplier #249 of content to SS) is that profits from the submitted work of contributors thus far is enabling SS to expand its business into other areas that won't grow our business with them at all.

I'm not saying they haven't grown the original areas of their business - they clearly have - but I can't get all that excited about taking the profits from that to grow new businesses. It feels to me a bit like the first wife who works to put her husband through medical school only to have him leave her for someone younger once he's graduated and all the tuition bills are paid....


« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2015, 18:48 »
+16
Thank you for your interest about the news we shared this morning. We received a number of questions and hope to answer them here.

What this mean for our contributors:
In the immediate future, nothing will change for our commercial and editorial contributors. Please continue to submit content as you have and well continue to market and license your work. Our Red Carpet program will remain the same. We will continue to work with our editorial contributors to help you gain access to events. These acquisitions provide a wider audience for our commercial and editorial contributors. A broader audience means more views of your work which equals more downloads for you.


Will editorial images from Shutterstock also be available on Rex Features?
For the foreseeable future, Shutterstock editorial and Rex Features will run in parallel. This means that the images you submit to Shutterstock will remain on Shutterstock. Should plans change, we will keep you updated.

Where do the images on Rex Features come from and can I submit content?
Rex receives image submissions from freelancers, staff photographers and agencies around the world and covers red carpet events, celebrity photography, news, sports, and features. Rex also has an archive that stretches back to the early days of photography and shoots 'on set' exclusively for many TV shows.

Rex Features is rights managed?  Does that mean that Shutterstock is moving into RM licensing?
Rex currently licenses images for a single use rather than an unlimited number of uses. Shutterstock has no plans to change our current licensing structure.

What is the Rex Features pricing model?
Rex customers can either pay a fixed amount per image, or commit to a customized annual subscription.

Does Rex Features license footage?
Rex began producing and selling video over the last 18 months.

Will Shutterstock contributors have the ability to submit music tracks?
Currently, we are not accepting submissions to our music collection. We will keep you updated on progress.

Thanks,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations

What abt the raise question?

shudderstok

« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2015, 20:01 »
+1
Thank you for your interest about the news we shared this morning. We received a number of questions and hope to answer them here.

What this mean for our contributors:
In the immediate future, nothing will change for our commercial and editorial contributors. Please continue to submit content as you have and well continue to market and license your work. Our Red Carpet program will remain the same. We will continue to work with our editorial contributors to help you gain access to events. These acquisitions provide a wider audience for our commercial and editorial contributors. A broader audience means more views of your work which equals more downloads for you.


Will editorial images from Shutterstock also be available on Rex Features?
For the foreseeable future, Shutterstock editorial and Rex Features will run in parallel. This means that the images you submit to Shutterstock will remain on Shutterstock. Should plans change, we will keep you updated.

Where do the images on Rex Features come from and can I submit content?
Rex receives image submissions from freelancers, staff photographers and agencies around the world and covers red carpet events, celebrity photography, news, sports, and features. Rex also has an archive that stretches back to the early days of photography and shoots 'on set' exclusively for many TV shows.

Rex Features is rights managed?  Does that mean that Shutterstock is moving into RM licensing?
Rex currently licenses images for a single use rather than an unlimited number of uses. Shutterstock has no plans to change our current licensing structure.

What is the Rex Features pricing model?
Rex customers can either pay a fixed amount per image, or commit to a customized annual subscription.

Does Rex Features license footage?
Rex began producing and selling video over the last 18 months.

Will Shutterstock contributors have the ability to submit music tracks?
Currently, we are not accepting submissions to our music collection. We will keep you updated on progress.

Thanks,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations

What abt the raise question?

If you want a raise and a share of the profits buy the stock to get your "raise" in the form of dividends. Otherwise don't hold our breath as you as a contributor are most likely the biggest "liability" SS has. Nothing personal it's only business :)

in other words "It feels to me a bit like the first wife who works to put her husband through medical school only to have him leave her for someone younger once he's graduated and all the tuition bills are paid...."




No Free Lunch

« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2015, 20:08 »
+1
in other words "It feels to me a bit like the first wife who works to put her husband through medical school only to have him leave her for someone younger once he's graduated and all the tuition bills are paid...."

In the states we have a thing called a good divorce attorney and 'Alimony' or Spousal maintenance support- that the wonderful doctor would have to pay the rest of his life to his ex-wife!  8)



« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2015, 20:56 »
+27
Reading this whole thread, I don't see anything at all for contributors to be excited about.  The whole 'exciting news' angle when really it is no benefit to contributors but only more money in  SS pockets feels a bit deja vu to me.  Do they have Kelly Thompson writing their announcements for contributors now?


Rinderart

« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2015, 00:59 »
+9
Reading this whole thread, I don't see anything at all for contributors to be excited about.  The whole 'exciting news' angle when really it is no benefit to contributors but only more money in  SS pockets feels a bit deja vu to me.  Do they have Kelly Thompson writing their announcements for contributors now?

If some...how many VP's are there? would address a raise for us that means something to us other than shareholders we would be very Grateful. Not one word in 4 years for gods sake.

« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2015, 03:46 »
+10
The most exciting news are that nothing will change in the near future for contributors. And the coffee maker in the next room is working again 8)


« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2015, 04:59 »
+13
Reading this whole thread, I don't see anything at all for contributors to be excited about.  The whole 'exciting news' angle when really it is no benefit to contributors but only more money in  SS pockets feels a bit deja vu to me.  Do they have Kelly Thompson writing their announcements for contributors now?


If some...how many VP's are there? would address a raise for us that means something to us other than shareholders we would be very Grateful. Not one word in 4 years for gods sake.


Try 7 years - Last SS Raise - May 13, 2008

http://tinyurl.com/l4zgs69

Reminds me of the Offset PR release - in other words "It feels to me a bit like the first wife who works to put her husband through medical school only to have him leave her for someone younger once he's graduated and all the tuition bills are paid...."
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 05:01 by gbalex »

« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2015, 10:41 »
+6
Re the Red Carpet.... I don't really submit editorial (OR RC) so I didn't take much note of the announcement, but didn't they stop the SS Red Carpet program, or seriously alter it's restrictions a while back?  Must have been while they were doing their due diligence since REX has a red carpet division.

Get back to work people.  There was no glory for the Egyptian slaves that built the great pyramids either.

« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2015, 10:59 »
+17
"Please continue to submit content as you have..."

No problem with that, since I'm submitting nothing.    SS will never get another photo from me until there's a significant (and I mean significant) royalty increase.

ShadySue

« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2015, 11:07 »
+11
Reading this whole thread, I don't see anything at all for contributors to be excited about.  The whole 'exciting news' angle when really it is no benefit to contributors but only more money in  SS pockets feels a bit deja vu to me.  Do they have Kelly Thompson writing their announcements for contributors now?

If some...how many VP's are there? would address a raise for us that means something to us other than shareholders we would be very Grateful. Not one word in 4 years for gods sake.

Why would they even consider a raise, when the overwhelming opinion expressed here for ages has been how fantastic SS is (at least compared to the others, which isn't saying much). They're sitting pretty, with an apparently 'mostly very happy' contributor base.

« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2015, 11:41 »
+6
Reading this whole thread, I don't see anything at all for contributors to be excited about.  The whole 'exciting news' angle when really it is no benefit to contributors but only more money in  SS pockets feels a bit deja vu to me.  Do they have Kelly Thompson writing their announcements for contributors now?

If some...how many VP's are there? would address a raise for us that means something to us other than shareholders we would be very Grateful. Not one word in 4 years for gods sake.

Why would they even consider a raise, when the overwhelming opinion expressed here for ages has been how fantastic SS is (at least compared to the others, which isn't saying much). They're sitting pretty, with an apparently 'mostly very happy' contributor base.

ahh, yes. i have been saying this for years.   but  "ALL THINGS CHANGE".....remember istock?

« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2015, 11:52 »
0
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/shutterstock-looks-for-m-a-when-it-works-ceo-jon-oringer-3_lW_4d8TvSIHiPnDx00BQ.html?cmpid=yhoo

Somewhat rambling interview by Bloomberg news with Jon Oringer about the Rex and Premium Beat acquisitions.

There's talk in there about there being many more people with smartphones at events than professional photographers and his thought that SS can help those people monetize their editorial content. He also talks about the importance of the relationships Rex staff had with their clients and suppliers for editorial photos. Not clear to me that those two things can co-exist.

He was also asked about organic growth versus more M&A and he said they'd do more mergers if they found the right one, but planned to grow organically. No one asked if the BigStock acquisition was an example of a failed M&A :)

« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2015, 12:56 »
-2
This acquisition might increase general sales and therefore bring more $ to contributors too. Some buyers only purchase from super respectful companies and SS is building that image well.
I still hope SS will finally address a raise request asap!

« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2015, 13:48 »
+7
Get back to work people.  There was no glory for the Egyptian slaves who built the great pyramids either.

Ouch.  Love that quote.  Unfortunately, I think that pretty much sums it up.

Rinderart

« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2015, 00:32 »
0
Get back to work people.  There was no glory for the Egyptian slaves who built the great pyramids either.

Ouch.  Love that quote.  Unfortunately, I think that pretty much sums it up.


YEP!!!!!!

ShadySue

« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2015, 04:50 »
0
Get back to work people.  There was no glory for the Egyptian slaves who built the great pyramids either.


Ouch.  Love that quote.  Unfortunately, I think that pretty much sums it up.


<pedant mode>Indeed, apart from the historical inaccuracy:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt </pedant>
But I understood the point you were making.  :)


Uncle Pete

« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2015, 09:56 »
+1
Stock Market opinion, another view of the acquisition. Maybe if I owned SS stock, I'd be "excited".  ???

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2825306-update-shutterstocks-acquisitions?auth_param=stqub:1abju3d:8f04eb235b38e502037f990502a79fb6&uprof=46&dr=1

« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2015, 12:41 »
0
I couldn't read the Seeking Alpha article - it faded after a few seconds with a request to register.

I found it interesting that Variety wrote a short piece on this - with a logo for Shutterstock I don't recognize (IOW I don't think it's ever had that logo)

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/shutterstock-acquires-premiumbeat-rex-features-1201407572/

There's also an interview with Oringer in this blog from Yahoo Finance including this quote about Adobe as a competitor "...In the bigger picture we compete with Adobe in the field of work-flow..(and will do so) over the next 25 years.

http://firstadopter.tumblr.com/post/108210540999/interview-the-ceo-of-shutterstock-says-adobe-is

It also includes a quote that says no raise for you lot: "The 30% rate is fair to the contributor and lets us invest in marketing and the technology..(30%) is the right spot.

Shelma1

« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2015, 13:04 »
0
"Both businesses will eventually be folded into Shutterstocks banner."

From the Variety article.

« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2015, 14:26 »
0
I remember Oringer saying once (maybe 3 years ago) something to the effect that they are a technology business vs their competitors (stock photo agencies).

« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2015, 14:35 »
+2
- but I can't get all that excited about taking the profits from that to grow new businesses. It feels to me a bit like the first wife who works to put her husband through medical school only to have him leave her for someone younger once he's graduated and all the tuition bills are paid....

and who are we? not the first wife, but more the first wife with whom he left the 12 children he mate  made with her, and ran off with the younger wife, leaving wife1 without any financial support.
microstock's first deadbeat father

No Free Lunch

« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2015, 14:37 »
+2
This news is as 'Exciting' as my yearly physical  :-[



« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2015, 14:38 »
+4
Reading this whole thread, I don't see anything at all for contributors to be excited about.  The whole 'exciting news' angle when really it is no benefit to contributors but only more money in  SS pockets feels a bit deja vu to me. Do they have Kelly Thompson writing their announcements for contributors now?

wait for it, headlines of a big sell-off and owner running off with the big cash .
and maybe come back in 3 years to start a new agency too with contributors interest in mind ;D

sounds all too familiar..

« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2015, 14:40 »
+2
This news is as 'Exciting' as my yearly physical  :-[

ya, like the finger of your GYN stick into you ;D

« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2015, 14:48 »
+15
Oringer saying he thinks Adobe is their competition is a good indication that SS is now sailing away from reality.  Microsotock doesn't really ring their chimes anymore, they want to play in a bigger space. Watch for SS to start spending huge amounts of money on crazy acquisitions and schemes, while pointing to these grandiose plans to "grow the business" as a reason they can't afford a royalty increase. 

If the standard script is followed, the wild acquisitions result in huge losses, followed by a stockholder kickback, and eventually the familiar speech about "refocusing on our core competencies.".

Flame me if you want, but I've seen it all from the inside and I'm sure some of you have too.   
« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 20:38 by stockastic »

No Free Lunch

« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2015, 15:37 »
+12
Oringer saying he thinks Adobe is their competition is a good indication that SS is now sailing away from reality.  Microsotock doesn't really ring their chimes anymore, they want to play in a bigger space. Watch for SS to start spending huge amounts of money on crazy acquisitions and schemes, while pointing to these grandiose plans to "grow the business" as a reason they can't afford a royalty increase. 

If the standard script is followed, the wild acquisitions result in huge losses, followed by a stockholder kickback, and the standard speech about "refocusing on our core competencies.".

Flame me if you want, but I've seen it all from the inside and I'm sure some of you have too.

I remember Alamy claiming the same stuff in why they had to cut our pay - to better market our images and get more sales. Yeah, right! My sales on Alamy suck big time and I get paid less! I would use some very colorful metaphors towards Alamy but Leaf would remove my real thoughts  :-\


 


« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 15:41 by No Free Lunch »


« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2015, 17:18 »
+8
I couldn't read the Seeking Alpha article - it faded after a few seconds with a request to register.

I found it interesting that Variety wrote a short piece on this - with a logo for Shutterstock I don't recognize (IOW I don't think it's ever had that logo)

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/shutterstock-acquires-premiumbeat-rex-features-1201407572/

There's also an interview with Oringer in this blog from Yahoo Finance including this quote about Adobe as a competitor "...In the bigger picture we compete with Adobe in the field of work-flow..(and will do so) over the next 25 years.

http://firstadopter.tumblr.com/post/108210540999/interview-the-ceo-of-shutterstock-says-adobe-is

It also includes a quote that says no raise for you lot: "The 30% rate is fair to the contributor and lets us invest in marketing and the technology..(30%) is the right spot.

Not an ideal situation in the first place, however Jon conveniently forgets to mention that shutterstock has long employed the strategy of keeping buyer pricing in the dumpster with the end objective of gaining market share via ultra low pricing. His fine strategy has been and is, funded by his contributors as the cost to produce, upload and keyword content does not come out of Jon's or Shutterstock's pocket; but our own!

As we well know our price to produce continues to go up each and every year and our margins continue to grow thinner annually.

At some point in the near future 30% of 0% is a Big Fat Zero for the actual producers of the content which shutterstock will ultimately "Require To Continue To Operate As A Business".
« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 21:10 by gbalex »

« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2015, 17:56 »
+3
This news is as 'Exciting' as my yearly physical  :-[

ya, like the finger of your GYN stick into you ;D

LOL!  Or as exciting  as Bill Cosby having your wife over for coffee...

« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2015, 21:43 »
+17
In an ideal world every contributor would delete their account in unison, and the SS would have absolutely nothing. That way they may respect that contributors are their only asset. One day stock photographers/videographers may find a way to use their collective power in a way to gain control or at least respect from the agencies.

« Reply #60 on: January 18, 2015, 23:17 »
+13
The most exciting news are that nothing will change in the near future for contributors...
Wrong, I think.

Soon Shutterstock will have an "Explore Rex Features" button on the Shutterstock landing page beside the "Explore OFFSET.com" button, to steer editorial image buyers away from the SS contributors who sell editorial. (There will be no "Explore Shutterstock" button on the Rex Features site and SS contributors will never be allowed to contribute to Rex Features.)

Semmick Photo

« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2015, 02:22 »
+13
Quote
Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!
 



What this mean for our contributors:

In the immediate future, nothing will change for our commercial and editorial contributors.

Thanks,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations

« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2015, 09:15 »
+3
Quote
Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!
 



What this mean for our contributors:

In the immediate future, nothing will change for our commercial and editorial contributors.

Thanks,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations

Then doesn't this mean it is only exciting for SS but bleh for contributors? Just busting your balls.  Even so, I've been thinking about how SS could answer the part about what's in it for contributors and all I can think of is brand strength. The stronger SS is the longer we will get commissions from them that are the best in micro stock.  But that has its pitfalls once SS becomes a micro stock monopoly or duopoly kinda of industry.  Like someone else in here said, its very risky for SS to become a dominant player that leads to monopoly-type behaviors. Yes they are dominant now, but I mean dominant to he point where we start to see them chip away at our commissions "because they can".
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 08:54 by Mantis »

« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2015, 10:35 »
+6
Quote
Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ!
 



What this mean for our contributors:

In the immediate future, nothing will change for our commercial and editorial contributors.

Thanks,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations


Hilarious juxtaposition.   Thanks for the laugh, Semmick!

[update]  Still laughing at this - a classic corporate-speak meltdown.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 13:02 by stockastic »

« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2015, 11:48 »
+2
Its exiting as counting the white lines on a highway drive

« Reply #65 on: January 19, 2015, 13:15 »
+2
Every red carpet contributor just got really happy :) Especially those living in hollywood, beverly hills, and NYC.  For the rest of us, we'll just say congrats and cheer from the sidelines.  ;D

Rinderart

« Reply #66 on: January 19, 2015, 13:58 »
+2
Every red carpet contributor just got really happy :) Especially those living in hollywood, beverly hills, and NYC.  For the rest of us, we'll just say congrats and cheer from the sidelines.  ;D

there already Talking about it.


Rinderart

« Reply #67 on: January 19, 2015, 14:38 »
+1
In an ideal world every contributor would delete their account in unison, and the SS would have absolutely nothing. That way they may respect that contributors are their only asset. One day stock photographers/videographers may find a way to use their collective power in a way to gain control or at least respect from the agencies.

One of the ALL TIME best Posts ever in My 10 years reading Micro forums. We gave the farm away when we could have done something and we didn't because of the vast majority of Hobbyists willing to take whatever they handed out and this is not about SS. it's all of them. The day before Micro was heard of. 2/300 dollars was a normal Commission. My issue has always been why so cheap to begin with at 20 cents. going from a few hundred dollars to 20 cents started a war back then. If some of you remember that, Buyers caught On and we had to join up to crowd sourcing or not do this.

We will never get 200 Bucks again but... we can sure do a lot better than 25/38 cents if we stand up. Sadly I believe it's to late. They have us by the shorties. Do we just gripe and grown? which kills Motivation and attitude or do we stand together?

We got lazy and complacent. There is No one here or on any site that cannot be replaced in 30 Days. Fact, and I see it happening Now. 4,200 tomatoes were added the last 3 weeks and 90,000 Lifestyle Images with the same 3 People having fun  cooking in the back yard or a delivery man with a package smiling. And  a gazillion new portraits of women and men and kids having fun. in every possible ethnic group and a gazillion Instagram pics.....Why?  whats the purpose?

When I reviewed, even back in 2006 I saw the same picture 200 times a day by 50 different submitters. Why? and when will they just say no More. Do the research and give us ideas of what they need, or do they need fresh new submitters with worldwide lifestyle concepts with a lot more ethnically diverse looks.

I don't know anything anymore. Im just ranting...because I can. sorry.

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: January 19, 2015, 15:56 »
+11
It's never too late. And every revolution seemed impossible before it happened.  ;)

« Reply #69 on: January 19, 2015, 21:50 »
+3
In an ideal world every contributor would delete their account in unison, and the SS would have absolutely nothing. That way they may respect that contributors are their only asset. One day stock photographers/videographers may find a way to use their collective power in a way to gain control or at least respect from the agencies.
We built this city. The images we created are the bricks in the SS/IS/FT/etc billion dollar empire. What if someone created a petition for microstockers whereby we the signers promised that when a total of 5000 of us had signed we would all delete all of our images in unison from the top 3 microstock sites. I would sign it, in blood.

« Reply #70 on: January 19, 2015, 22:00 »
+2
What if someone created a petition for microstockers whereby we the signers promised that when a total of 5000 of us had signed we would all delete all of our images in unison from the top 3 microstock sites. I would sign it, in blood.

I would sign it too, in blood and in a heartbeat. It probably would work if we all stuck to our guns.

But my pledge might not count since I'm one of the much-maligned "hobbyists" who don't make a complete living from this and who (some say) began ruining the business the moment we entered it.

Pointing accusatory fingers doesn't really help any of us accomplish our goals.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 08:49 by marthamarks »

« Reply #71 on: January 19, 2015, 23:45 »
+6
What if someone created a petition for microstockers whereby we the signers promised that when a total of 5000 of us had signed we would all delete all of our images in unison from the top 3 microstock sites. I would sign it, in blood.

I would sign it too, in blood and in a heartbeat. It probably would work if we all stuck to our guns.

But my pledge might not count since I'm one of the much-aligned "hobbyists" who don't make a complete living from this and who (some say) began ruining the business the moment we entered it.

Pointing accusatory fingers doesn't really help any of us accomplish our goals.

it's easy to get everyone to say go ahead and begin the revolution . but experience taught me that when the times comes, you will be standing there alone . much in the same way i was told many years ago to stand up and be the spokesman for my colleagues to tell the boss off. when the times came, the boss asked how many of you are behind this young chap, no one stood up .
this will be the reason why such a revolution will never happen. esp when there is no other agency that can produce sales like ss.

« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2015, 08:01 »
+8
it's easy to get everyone to say go ahead and begin the revolution . but experience taught me that when the times comes, you will be standing there alone . much in the same way i was told many years ago to stand up and be the spokesman for my colleagues to tell the boss off. when the times came, the boss asked how many of you are behind this young chap, no one stood up .
this will be the reason why such a revolution will never happen. esp when there is no other agency that can produce sales like ss.

We in the eastern part of Europe have completely other experiences ;)

« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2015, 08:52 »
+2
There isn't going to be a revolution, neither will there be a mass deletion day and SS are not going to change their minds and hand Rex features their business back.

« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2015, 09:00 »
+2
this will be the reason why such a revolution will never happen. esp when there is no other agency that can produce sales like ss.

You're probably right about that. But if nobody is bold and brave, nothing will ever change and all of us might as well stop bitching and moaning about it.

Since you mentioned that "no other agency... can produce sales like ss"...  I just gotta report this:

This morning, checking overnight sales on SS, I had quite a surprise. In my "singles and other" column (where in the past I have gotten as much as $90 for a download and never less than $7) now I find a sale for $.33. That's 33 US cents.

That never happened before, and I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but I guess it is. So my question is how???

Semmick Photo

« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2015, 09:16 »
+1
this will be the reason why such a revolution will never happen. esp when there is no other agency that can produce sales like ss.

You're probably right about that. But if nobody is bold and brave, nothing will ever change and all of us might as well stop bitching and moaning about it.

Since you mentioned that "no other agency... can produce sales like ss"...  I just gotta report this:

This morning, checking overnight sales on SS, I had quite a surprise. In my "singles and other" column (where in the past I have gotten as much as $90 for a download and never less than $7) now I find a sale for $.33. That's 33 US cents.

That never happened before, and I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but I guess it is. So my question is how???
Those are Facebook sales, a deal they announced over a year ago.

« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2015, 09:35 »
+1
Those are Facebook sales, a deal they announced over a year ago.

Thanks for that info. I remember when we discussed that FB deal but hadn't seen anything like this come through before, so I didn't recognize it this morning. Guess there's a first time for everything.

Getting $.33 for a non-sub download is not an "exciting new development" however.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2015, 09:43 »
+5
Those are Facebook sales, a deal they announced over a year ago.

Thanks for that info. I remember when we discussed that FB deal but hadn't seen anything like this come through before, so I didn't recognize it this morning. Guess there's a first time for everything.

Getting $.33 for a non-sub download is not an "exciting new development" however.

But its not a new development.

I think its a good deal. FB offers the SS images to their customers for free but pays SS for every time an image is use in an add. Only smaller size images are used. As regular sub the buyer can download a full res image for 38 cent and use it in perpetuity, on FB is a limited use of  a smaller res, but  still get 38 cent.  Dont see anything wrong with that deal, never have, never will.

Off topic, apologies.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2015, 10:17 »
+1
And the average size of the image is about this size.


« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2015, 10:28 »
+5
One day there will be more information on internet telling that there is no money in microstock than sites telling people that it is get rich quick schema. At this point of time people will stop coming and whole business model will collapse. When supply of newbies dries up and more experienced photogs will not return they can only sell old images.

Shelma1

« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2015, 11:35 »
+6
In an ideal world every contributor would delete their account in unison, and the SS would have absolutely nothing. That way they may respect that contributors are their only asset. One day stock photographers/videographers may find a way to use their collective power in a way to gain control or at least respect from the agencies.
We built this city. The images we created are the bricks in the SS/IS/FT/etc billion dollar empire. What if someone created a petition for microstockers whereby we the signers promised that when a total of 5000 of us had signed we would all delete all of our images in unison from the top 3 microstock sites. I would sign it, in blood.

One problem is that we all agreed that we could only delete 10% of our work from Shutterstock per...how long was that period, again?

I think you need a petition that makes specific demands. For example, a new 40 tier for SS subs once you've earned $10,000, and 35% royalties pegged to the amount the buyer actually pays, not a flat rate. (I'm just making that up. i don't know whether it would be lucrative or not.) And some sort of demand for iStock...30% royalties for indies and 50% for exclusives? But you have different issues at different agencies, so that would need to be thought out. And iStock is on the way down, so they might not be willing or able to negotiate.

Already you have some success with DPC and people opting out of the exciting $2 Google deal. So people do act on things.

« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2015, 15:35 »
+3
...Already you have some success with DPC and people opting out of the exciting $2 Google deal. So people do act on things.
And I think that enough people deleted images on IS and stopped submitting there that it did hurt them somewhat - although IS did so many disastrous things that it is hard to know exactly what caused their downfall from #1.

As many people have pointed out, we really do have the power to hurt the companies which stop acting in good faith as our agents and start simply exploiting us. But we would have to act together. Is it really impossible that we could?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
2452 Views
Last post January 20, 2015, 18:33
by gbalex
1 Replies
4348 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 11:05
by Kenny
98 Replies
13397 Views
Last post July 14, 2017, 10:54
by increasingdifficulty
46 Replies
18230 Views
Last post July 08, 2017, 15:46
by increasingdifficulty
25 Replies
2285 Views
Last post August 02, 2019, 07:29
by PaulieWalnuts

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results