Author Topic: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year... (Read 30467 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #50 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:52 »

What we will more likely get is a well deserved cut.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #51 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:06 »

Quote from: Rv-Voyager on February 25, 2015, 09:15

Profits were announced last Thursday.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-4q-profit-forecasts-221324563.html

Just exposing the profits and lavish corporate lifestyle will create a PR problem. SS will then have an issue they must deal with.

May be a book, " Modern Day Sweat Shop in America" would get the media attention.

only that it is not only in USA, it is global sweatshop.
compared to slave labor or child labor in india this is worst because the slave and child do not have to pay for their equipment .
yes, write a book, produce a film better, combine the plot with money-laundering where the top earners make millions of downloads while the rest are still waiting for a payout.
see you in cannes or where they hold the annual award ...receiving the best indie - best controversial movie - awards for 2016

what will be the title of the movie??? maybe "far wider than india/
soundtrack sung by david bowie "this is not india"

jodijacobson · « **Reply #52 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:15 »

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #53 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:30 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

1. LOL
2. Get your facts straight
3. SS provided and provides an income for a lot of people
4. LOL

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #54 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:32 »

I said it in another post. They have no reason to give a raise. Everything is going great.

Every time they do an announcement it's about excellent financials and huge growth. Contributors are submitting a bazillion new images a month with a bazillion new contributors joining all the time. Buyers are flocking to them and abandoning higher priced places. They've rewarded themselves for a job well done by moving into an insanely expensive office in NY.

Why would they give contributors a raise? No problems to fix, no need to give a raise.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #55 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:36 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Not just SS. Microstock as a whole, with huge influence from SS, has shaped stock photography into what it is today. Whether not stock photography is ruined probably will vary per person.

Ariene · « **Reply #56 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:38 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 25, 2015, 14:32

I said it in another post. They have no reason to give a raise. Everything is going great.

Every time they do an announcement it's about excellent financials and huge growth. Contributors are submitting a bazillion new images a month with a bazillion new contributors joining all the time. Buyers are flocking to them and abandoning higher priced places. They've rewarded themselves for a job well done by moving into an insanely expensive office in NY.

Why would they give contributors a raise? No problems to fix, no need to give a raise.

Paulie, I'm really sorry to say you are right!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:39 »

only that it is not only in USA, it is global sweatshop.
"compared to slave labor or child labor in india this is worst because the slave and child do not have to pay for their equipment ."

Really??? I actually find that comment rather offensive

Monkeyman · « **Reply #58 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:42 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

I agree, but it's not just Shutterstock. There are a few other lousy sites selling on demand licenses for peanuts. And every sale there is a lost sale at a site with fairer prices.

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:44 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

To be fair, it was lower on iS back in the day. My first iS sale netted me 19c, and it had been lower before
The difference is, AFAIK, SS only raised the value of payouts once (other than the increments) and have held subs at an unsustainably (except for truly mass-market images) low price for too long.
(Talking only about subs. I realise a proportion of SS submitters get plenty non-sub sales).
Also, Getty had a horrendous reputation with photographers long before they bought iStock.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #60 on:** February 25, 2015, 14:47 »

It doesnt matter what SS did, it would have been inevitable, as it goes with everything. Someone would be the first to do it.

The development of the digital camera ruined Kodak. Should the digital camera not have been invented?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #61 on:** February 25, 2015, 15:19 »

Getty has done as much or more damage to the stock industry as any of the other candidates for bringing about ruinous conditions for contributors.

Ask any of the people who contributed to the many agencies they acquired - photos and music - whose royalty rates they cut and whose terms they made less favorable for anyone but Getty.

In addition, subscriptions were around long before Shutterstock started - they were on CDs and DVDs before things moved online.

Further, things were doing really well, for both iStock and Shutterstock for a while. IMO things could have continued that way long term - if Shutterstock were the culprit, the really big gains at iStock up to Sept. 2010 wouldn't have happened.

In terms of ruining the industry, want to talk about the deal Google did with Getty? Or Fotolia's toxic Dollar Photo Club? Or 123rf making its parent company, Inmagine, a distribution partner so they get two bites at the apple from the buyer's price? Or iStock cutting contributor royalties to 15% from an already low 20%? Or Deposit Photos paying a subscription royalty while the partner site sells at 99 euros?

Can't imagine all of that can be laid at Shutterstock's door.

tickstock · « **Reply #62 on:** February 25, 2015, 15:53 »

What's it been 5 or 6 years since there was a raise. The management have said over and over they are happy with the rate they are paying out (even if they fudge the numbers sometimes to make them look better) so I wouldn't expect any change.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #63 on:** February 25, 2015, 15:56 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 25, 2015, 15:19

Getty has done as much or more damage to the stock industry as any of the other candidates for bringing about ruinous conditions for contributors.

Ask any of the people who contributed to the many agencies they acquired - photos and music - whose royalty rates they cut and whose terms they made less favorable for anyone but Getty.

In addition, subscriptions were around long before Shutterstock started - they were on CDs and DVDs before things moved online.

Further, things were doing really well, for both iStock and Shutterstock for a while. IMO things could have continued that way long term - if Shutterstock were the culprit, the really big gains at iStock up to Sept. 2010 wouldn't have happened.

In terms of ruining the industry, want to talk about the deal Google did with Getty? Or Fotolia's toxic Dollar Photo Club? Or 123rf making its parent company, Inmagine, a distribution partner so they get two bites at the apple from the buyer's price? Or iStock cutting contributor royalties to 15% from an already low 20%? Or Deposit Photos paying a subscription royalty while the partner site sells at 99 euros?

Can't imagine all of that can be laid at Shutterstock's door.

Jo Ann, your comments are always so spot on. I really appreciate your contribution on MSG.

Now if we could get Lisa back, double the fun !

tickstock · « **Reply #64 on:** February 25, 2015, 15:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 25, 2015, 13:52

What we will more likely get is a well deserved cut.

I think there have been a few already they are just well disguised. Multi user subs, bigstock, etc.. expect more of that.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #65 on:** February 25, 2015, 16:06 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on February 25, 2015, 15:56

Jo Ann, your comments are always so spot on. I really appreciate your contribution on MSG.

Now if we could get Lisa back, double the fun !

Mantis · « **Reply #66 on:** February 25, 2015, 16:09 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 25, 2015, 15:59

Quote from: stockastic on February 25, 2015, 13:52
What we will more likely get is a well deserved cut.
I think there have been a few already they are just well disguised. Multi user subs, bigstock, etc.. expect more of that.

Right i agree with this. Cuts will continue to be disguised in creative ways. There will be much more weight placed this strategy than flat out "we are cutting commissions".

disorderly · « **Reply #67 on:** February 25, 2015, 16:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 25, 2015, 14:44

The difference is, AFAIK, SS only raised the value of payouts once (other than the increments) and have held subs at an unsustainably (except for truly mass-market images) low price for too long.

Not so, at least in the time I've been with them. My first royalties back in 2005 were .20 each. They rose to .25 the end of March, 2006. They rose again to .30 the end of April, 2007. I saw my first tiered increase in May, 2008 (to .36), and my second in January, 2011 (to .38). That adds up to three regular increases. The third was the tiered increase: .33/.36/.38 as I recall.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #68 on:** February 25, 2015, 16:13 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Jodi, you come out of lurking here for this?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 25, 2015, 16:31 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

They pay me about 5x more than iStock. So I guess I deserve it. Thanks!

PixelBytes · « **Reply #70 on:** February 25, 2015, 20:26 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 25, 2015, 16:13

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Jodi, you come out of lurking here for this?

What do you expect, she's going to reverse years of fawning over Istock and make a critical post of them?

jodijacobson · « **Reply #71 on:** February 25, 2015, 22:50 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 25, 2015, 16:13

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15
Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone! All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Jodi, you come out of lurking here for this?

Yup....

ShadySue · « **Reply #72 on:** February 26, 2015, 04:17 »

Quote from: disorderly on February 25, 2015, 16:10

Quote from: ShadySue on February 25, 2015, 14:44
The difference is, AFAIK, SS only raised the value of payouts once (other than the increments) and have held subs at an unsustainably (except for truly mass-market images) low price for too long.

Not so, at least in the time I've been with them. My first royalties back in 2005 were .20 each. They rose to .25 the end of March, 2006. They rose again to .30 the end of April, 2007. I saw my first tiered increase in May, 2008 (to .36), and my second in January, 2011 (to .38). That adds up to three regular increases. The third was the tiered increase: .33/.36/.38 as I recall.

Oh, I am well out of date. I thought the lowest tier sub payout was still <30c. Sorry.

OTOH, a proportion of iS contributors lost out on percentage increases they were promised to be grandfathered into at the introduction of RCs when they reneged on an assurance, and worse still, a proportion of those who had followed iS's urging to submit multiple media were shafted and went down a level (or two) when the media were split.
Not to mention almost every indie got a percentage cut.
What message was all of that sending out to the industry?
Not much defensible on either site.

File Sold · « **Reply #73 on:** February 26, 2015, 05:16 »

Would be nice to have a top-tier raise like $0.40/subs for over $50.000 earnings or something. That would give a nice bonus for people that really have been the pioneers of microstock.

When I played internet poker, there was these FPP's (player points) and when you got enough them you could buy some nice accessories like Porsche Carrera or a trip to Hawaii

Why not do something like that, but in microstock scene. I could get a retina iMac or 5d3 with my FPP's and make better microstock images. Or then a free vacation away from my computer.

In my mind it would be awesome to see rewards for a long time contributors. There's many ways to reward those pioneers, it's just that SS (and other stock agencies) don't want to.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #74 on:** February 26, 2015, 05:20 »

I really hope SS doesn't make the same mistakes that Getty made with IS. These sort of rumblings are exactly the kind of early warning of contributor dissatisfaction that could have been heeded by IS all those years ago and averted the decline of their site. Leaf should be paid by the agencies for providing this forum. It saves them tens of thousands of pounds on consultants that they'd need to do this kind of research.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year... (Read 30467 times)

stockastic

etudiante_rapide

jodijacobson

Semmick Photo

PaulieWalnuts

PaulieWalnuts

Ariene

Pauws99

Monkeyman

ShadySue

Semmick Photo

Jo Ann Snover

tickstock

Semmick Photo

tickstock

etudiante_rapide

Mantis

disorderly

Sean Locke Photography

Shelma1

PixelBytes

jodijacobson

ShadySue

File Sold

Justanotherphotographer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors