MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Rv-Voyager on February 24, 2015, 16:11
-
Since Vincent at Shutterstock locked this thread on their forum. I have decide this discussion needs to be moved to Microstock.
-
If nothing else, it would be nice to see prices raised at the bottom (subs & small sizes). It's definitely holding back profits (for me).
-
Agreed.
-
Tyler asked and said before to please post a link to threads you are discussing that there is a link to so here it is.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145571&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145571&start=0)
Thing is this is all old news!
SS moved into the ESB easily a year ago and everyone knew all about this and the pizza and game and massage rooms as well!
Thing with all the microstock people that are the ones complining is they never worked a real job in their life!
Some 90%-95% of the micro photogs work for themselves and never had a job where they were on a timeclock or piecerate or salaried!
Google offers this and then some for their employees as do many companies in the real world anymore because they have found out that happy employees are more productive and better overall for the company!
Once all of you micro photogs work as a blue collar worker as an employee for a company that doesn't offer these kind of benefits for 20 or so years and then you see these offers from companies you too would want to work for them.
So stop your crying because someone has what you don't have and do something about it!
All you full time self employed photogs set your own hours and do whatever you want when and how you want with no one to have to report to!
SS offers this as a perk for employees who do their job they get paid to do and they have someone to report to unlike you all do!
Being in the work force my entire life I would love to have had the chance to work for or with a company that treated their employees with a little respect and dignity and offered these type of company perks unlike many do.
The only ones you have to blame for your expenses going up are yourselves.
Micro cost should be dam near nothing for dam near any shoot you do.
-
Some 90%-95% of the micro photogs work for themselves and never had a job where they were on a timeclock or piecerate or salaried!
98% of statistics are made up on the spot.
-
Well, I'd like a raise, and I've worked in spaces just as nice as SS's. In fact, the last place I worked had a beer tap built into the kitchen island. Free beer, as much as you like, any time. They also had a stage set up with musical instruments and speakers so you could jam if you wanted to (though it was annoying for the people trying to work). Those were different. The in-house gyms, yoga, free pizza lunches, free bagel or donut Fridays, free neck massages, ping pong tables, basketball courts, I'd all seen before. And of course, the times when you're the client (during shoots or editing) you also got free dinner at four-star restaurants and free spa visits. Yet each year I got a raise!
-
...
-
Well, I'd like a raise, and I've worked in spaces just as nice as SS's. In fact, the last place I worked had a beer tap built into the kitchen island. Free beer, as much as you like, any time.
Why did you ever quit?
-
I didn't quit. I still work in advertising. I'm freelance—I move around. In exchange for all the perks, you're expected to put in 60-hour weeks. The perks are there to discourage you from leaving the office. But I'm really tired of working long hours and having a really long commute. So I'm trying to transition out.
-
What's the incentive for a dominant company to offer a raise at this point? I mean, sure I'd love one, but it only comes when there's an incentive for the company to offer it. In the regular workforce, people get raises to keep them at their jobs. It's in the company's interest to retain good people, and as the cost of living goes up, companies adjust compensation to keep employees happy or give them larger raises and bonuses to reward them for good work. Or they offer enticing packages to lure in new talent.
But in stock, what's the incentive? Shutterstock doesn't need to attract new talent. They've got piles of it. And even if they wanted to get new talent on board, it's probably more with a focus on Offset, building up that more high-end market. We're highly replaceable, so there's little incentive to do anything to keep us on. Adn for SS especially, they know that we need them. It's pretty hard to make a go at it in microstock without working with SS.
I'm all for a raise but I don't know how we go about selling anyone on it. I don't think anyone in the big offices is going to buy into the idea that they should do it just because it's the nice thing to do.
-
I agree with what EmberMike said. The only incentive would be if it helped keep people from quitting microstock altogether or sending everything to somewhere like stocksy or Alamy RM or any other place that people think might make them more than .38 or maybe kept people from throwing in the towel on the long run prospects and supporting things like the DPC just because they figure they might as well get every penny out of this lost cause before it is all dried up.
I would love a raise, maybe they could start small say by making the royalties on BS comparable to SS.
As for me controlling my costs, I have minimal control over the cost of gas, internet, computer equipment, photo equipment, food, lodging... Actually I do have some control, but I have already squeezed them about as much as I can and I will have a hard time going below zero.
-
I agree I'd like a raise, and I also agree we aren't gonna get one.
And I have worked real salary jobs most of my life. The callouses are still there on my hands. And if you care, I think those were underpaid too.
-
expecting a raise from a company in a crowd-sources industry is something short of futile.
Personally, I think that items like big SODs that show up occasionally count as a raise of sorts.,I just wish they were more predictable.
I have no grudge against a fancy head office. The folks there do important work. If it wasn't for the vast hoards of contributors, shutterstock would have less material to market but they would still likely have a smaller pool of possibly 'higher quality' photographers to work with anyways. Without the big-wigs and head office folks eating pizza in friday afternoons, I'd be on Symbiostock or marketing my tiny port of stock images on my own. Frankly, they do very good work for me.
If you really want more money from your image sales you are free to sell them elsewhere. Be the next Peter Lik if you really want. Just don't expect to have upper management at shutterstock to be concerned with grumblings in the crowd.
P.S. Barry, get over your pompous self already. Your disdain for anyone with a decent job or education is very well known. It really is tiring. Makes you seem bitter. Just because you wasted your life punching a clock doesn't mean that everyone should. Fwiw I've also worked min wage, piece meal (less than min wage), hourly, self employed, for government, for industry, for academia, for companies with fancy head offices and nothing fancy at all. Does that somehow make my opinion more valid? Great. Have a good one.
-
expecting a raise from a company in a crowd-sources industry is something short of futile...
They used to give us raises.
And while I agree that they will probably not do so now, I also am pretty sure that they could afford to. They believe they have us in a position where they can push us around all they want, and they are right, for now. But life is long, and there may come a day when SS needs our good will, and it will not be there for them.
-
I actually think they are pretty up front about everything and most announcements are for things that have the potential to benefit contributors.
If you want to be 'pushed around' head over to iStock. See what they've been doing to maximize the benefits realized by their contributors.
-
Raises, most of the time, don't go to the deserving. The way Shutterstock can help us, and themselves, earn more money from our content is to continue trying to eat Getty's lunch and lure away the higher value sales - corporate clients and such.
When I returned from exclusivity at iStock (summer 2011) my return per download was in the 60 cent to 75 cent range. At the end of last year it was hovering around the $1 mark (high 90s; only once, last April, did it go over $1)
If they can get my return per download up to (let's say) around $1.25, I'll consider that a raise even if the rates haven't changed. More high value sales and fewer basic subscriptions should be easily possible for them and won't give the shareholders or finance geniuses heart failure that their costs of goods is going up.
-
Another thought: I don't want a raise if it has to come at the cost of higher prices for buyers. If there is some way to pay for a raise without raising prices, that's fine. But with stuff like DPC around, and seemingly knocking on Shutterstock's door as they take up ad space in design magazines right next to SS, a poorly-timed rate increase to pay for a raise for us could do far more harm than good.
And I'm not saying no price increases, either. Just not for the sole purpose of paying contributors more. It has to be more strategic than that.
-
Once all of you micro photogs work as a blue collar worker as an employee for a company that doesn't offer these kind of benefits for 20 or so years and then you see these offers from companies you too would want to work for them.
I don't want any extra benefits. I just want a few to several hundred dollars extra in my pocket every month. Spread over half a dozen companies, it's not unreasonable to get that with a minimal raise.
-
I think Jo Ann Sn over has hit on the perfect strategy. If the agency would work at increasing the high value sales to a higher percent of the total sales, everybody, would win.
Smiling Jack
-
Tyler asked and said before to please post a link to threads you are discussing that there is a link to so here it is.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145571&start=0[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145571&start=0[/url])
Thing with all the microstock people that are the ones complining is they never worked a real job in their life!
Some 90%-95% of the micro photogs work for themselves and never had a job where they were on a timeclock or piecerate or salaried!
Google offers this and then some for their employees as do many companies in the real world anymore because they have found out that happy employees are more productive and better overall for the company!
Once all of you micro photogs work as a blue collar worker as an employee for a company that doesn't offer these kind of benefits for 20 or so years and then you see these offers from companies you too would want to work for them.
So stop your crying because someone has what you don't have and do something about it!
All you full time self employed photogs set your own hours and do whatever you want when and how you want with no one to have to report to!
SS offers this as a perk for employees who do their job they get paid to do and they have someone to report to unlike you all do!
Being in the work force my entire life I would love to have had the chance to work for or with a company that treated their employees with a little respect and dignity and offered these type of company perks unlike many do.
The only ones you have to blame for your expenses going up are yourselves.
Micro cost should be dam near nothing for dam near any shoot you do.
Wow! I've worked a typical job like most people, saved my money and then risked it all to be self employed only to have to work three times harder morning till midnight 6 days a week to get where I am. I do all the jobs a small business does with several people and I don't get paid vacation leave, I don't get sick leave, I don't get health insurance or any type of retirement. If I just do what I want I don't make any money, all my time is spent working. I also have no security, however the market goes so does my income. I also have to pay more in taxes as I don't have an employer paying half like all other employed people. I also have to file taxes four times a year. As far as having someone to report to I have to report to thousands of buyers instead of one boss. Unlike people who have a typical job I have to constantly guess what I need to do to make money whenI worked as a graphic designer there was not guess work, you did what you were assigned. I f I guess wrong I have wasted time and money.
-
I agree that currently there is no economical incentive for Shutterstock to give us a raise. They get all the fresh content they need at the current rate.
They might consider paying more if it were getting more difficult for them to get the fresh content they need to keep their customers happy.
But trying to organize some kind of community action to threaten them by stopping uploads, removing portfolios or such will never work, it did not work in any of the cases before (apart from the fact that them not giving us a raise is not the kind of behavior that would make me taking such drastic action towards a business partner).
So if we want to get more out of our images, we have to think differently.
There are several sites out there that pay a lot more per download (have higher prices or let us set the prices, pay higher percentages).
I'm thinking of Alamy, 500px, CM, Pond5, and such.
Granted, they do not sell much. No way they can replace Shutterstock income - in the short run.
If we upload all our new works to those sites first and wait some time (maybe a few months) before uploading to Shutterstock (and the other usual microstock agencies), that gives those sites the opportunity to show a fresher collection - at least for some time.
If enough of us do it (I started doing it, just to try it) maybe after time sales on those sites will start to rise. Which would mean more money for us.
And maybe (big maybe) after some time the microstock agencies (including Shutterstock) will realize that they have to do something (like a raise) to move up in our uploading priority and not to get the fresh content as the last one.
It's not a big sacrifice like deleting portfolios, the income from Shutterstock keeps coming in, it would just mean to delay income for new images for some time.
I don't know if it will have any impact, but I will try...
-
I am also doing this. It's up to any individual to decide, but I think it is worth uploading new work to higher paying sites a few months in advance of the sub factories. If not to put pressure on the sites, just to maximise the returns from the images over their lifetime.
If this becomes standard for contributors across the industry we would see some changes.
The first change could be individual opt in per image for subs and the like, or higher prices collections within agencies. That would remove the incentive to give our work to competitors first.
-
as a long as people sell the same pictures for much lower prices on other sites (DPC comes in mind) there will be no raise!
-
as a long as people sell the same pictures for much lower prices on other sites (DPC comes in mind) there will be no raise!
Golden point! Nothing more, nothing less to add, it's so obvious...
-
If enough of us do it (I started doing it, just to try it) maybe after time sales on those sites will start to rise. Which would mean more money for us.
Many calls for mobilisation of the troops have failed, there are too many contributors, and they are too scattered and they are not represented by one union.
As for putting your images elsewhere, if they cant find yours, they will pick someone elses. Dont think that your image is the image everyone is waiting for. Where your is not yours, but in general.
-
If enough of us do it (I started doing it, just to try it) maybe after time sales on those sites will start to rise. Which would mean more money for us.
Many calls for mobilisation of the troops have failed, there are too many contributors, and they are too scattered and they are not represented by one union.
As for putting your images elsewhere, if they cant find yours, they will pick someone elses. Dont think that your image is the image everyone is waiting for. Where your is not yours, but in general.
It doesn't need any mobilization of troops, everyone just does it to maximise their return on any one image. Over time it leads to two tier image libraries, those with the larger library with the freshest images and then the rest of the sites that don't pay as well, or even better differentiated pricing from the same agencies.
-
As for putting your images elsewhere, if they cant find yours, they will pick someone elses. Dont think that your image is the image everyone is waiting for. Where your is not yours, but in general.
Yes and no. If you do only tomato isolated level - yes, I agree.
But if you produce something more niche, not covered by milions, good keyword, you can expect client to find you and follow your work. I have my regular clients and they know I'll bring them new stuff to make article etc... So it's not imagination only :)
-
Many of us stopped meanwhile uploading to various competitors of SS like e.g. Fotolia or Deposit. People are tired and lost hope in many of those newcomers - stopped supporting sites which just bring a dime or two but treat contributors badly.
If SS would give a raise now it would be a further incentive to focus more on SS and dry out the competition. They could achieve finally a total market domination. As such, it would make perfectly sense.
Nevertheless, giving that the contributor management of SS is stable but seems to be totally unwilling or unable to evolve or bring any seriously useful new feature for Contribs (still no payoneer payout option!!!!) I highly doubt they will do it. Maybe it is a "thiscompanygottoobigparalysis" as well :-)
-
As for putting your images elsewhere, if they cant find yours, they will pick someone elses. Dont think that your image is the image everyone is waiting for. Where your is not yours, but in general.
Yes and no. If you do only tomato isolated level - yes, I agree.
But if you produce something more niche, not covered by milions, good keyword, you can expect client to find you and follow your work. I have my regular clients and they know I'll bring them new stuff to make article etc... So it's not imagination only :)
How can you know who are your customers on microstocks (except the [few] one you are in direct contact with)?
-
So you think that a SS monopoly and a "total market domination" would be a good thing? You are very wrong my friend! Never put all your eggs in the same basket!
-
So you think that a SS monopoly and a "total market domination" would be a good thing? You are very wrong my friend! Never put all your eggs in the same basket!
If you are referring to me: No. It is definitely not a good thing to see any monopoly. It is actually already scary how dominant SS is now.
I was analyzing from the Agencies POV what reasons they could have to give or not give a raise and understand the market dynamics which could lay behind such a step.
-
@ Ariene, Justanotherphotographer
Sorry, but I disagree. It has to be something extremely specific for people to keep searching for that one image.
To change agency behaviour you need masses and masses. Even if you move a 10 million images, you wont win. Look at DPC. I think the movement managed to get some 6-7 million images pulled out. The result was an opt out, but DPC is still well alive and kicking.
-
Now that SS is publicly traded..........
1. Priority #1 is to create shareholder wealth - giving a raise simply goes against that priority.
2. Giving a raise as a publicly traded company could set an unrealistic expectation of raises being demanded on a periodic basis moving forward....would we expect a raise each year, every 2 or 5 years? They could not fall into this trap given #1.
3. Someone said above somewhere a point that I selfishly agree with. What about the people who just "upload junk, get accepted what I can and I'm happy with the $150 a month I get" crowd. Some don't deserve a raise, but core contributors who up their game, contribute regularly, and make SS a better buying environment DO DESERVE a Raise. But deferring back to #1 and the fact that crowd sourcing is the model, it isn't going to happen.
I've m,mentioned this is a few threads. Unless there's a way to get 90% of contributors to pull their ports as leverage to renegotiate terms, it's simply like pushing a wet noodle uphill.
-
Since Vincent at Shutterstock locked this thread on their forum. I have decide this discussion needs to be moved to Microstock.
A raise.... ;D light years away..... they lock the tread even when is mentioned by contributors on theyr forum.
-
Profits were announced last Thursday.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-4q-profit-forecasts-221324563.html (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.
-
How can you know who are your customers on microstocks (except the [few] one you are in direct contact with)?
It's easy - I see their publications here and around ;)
-
They should make a $ 0.39 rank after $ 30.000 that's the least they could do.
But as Mantis said above, they've got no reason to make that happen.
-
I hear the Wolfgang Schäuble is to be head of Contributor Remuneration Affairs, once he's finished sorting out Greece. Requests for a pay rise can be sent to him through the normal channels, or if you need emergency funds you can reach him directly by dialling Nein! Nein! Nein!
-
If enough of us do it (I started doing it, just to try it) maybe after time sales on those sites will start to rise. Which would mean more money for us.
Many calls for mobilisation of the troops have failed, there are too many contributors, and they are too scattered and they are not represented by one union.
As for putting your images elsewhere, if they cant find yours, they will pick someone elses. Dont think that your image is the image everyone is waiting for. Where your is not yours, but in general.
It wasn't meant to be a call for mobilisation. As I said, those never achieved much.
It was meant as an example how I hope (no proof that it is helping yet) to improve my own earnings - give images an opportunity to be seen on higher paying sites before they appear on the cheap sites.
My images are not special enough that I would expect anyone to search the web for them and change their buying behavior.
But as I said, if (big if) many contributors do the same, those higher paying sites over time will have a fresher looking collection, and that may appeal to some buyers.
-
A raise would be welcome, obviously.
But I have a question: have you ever seen one agency raising the prices over time?
-
A raise would be welcome, obviously.
But I have a question: have you ever seen one agency raising the prices over time?
Yes, absolutely. Just one example: When I started with Fotolia in 2007 their biggest size was XL and was sold for 3 Credits (I think they just had three sizes back then).
Now its XXL for 10 Credits.
300% increase (no, they did not lower the price per credit).
-
A raise would be welcome, obviously.
But I have a question: have you ever seen one agency raising the prices over time?
Prices, yes, of course.
Percentages, not so sure ...
-
Sure I want a raise, but I don't think that anyone on the forums has come up with a solid business reason why SS would want to give us one. How does it improve their business or spot in the market.
Kindness is not a reason. But I'd take it.
Other than, I could use the money and we could get a reward for past efforts to make SS what it is. I don't see why they would want to give us any increase?
My idea, since the first time there was a thread about "SS Raise" remains the same: Add another level higher than the current top, as an incentive for people who work hard and produce best quality images (THAT SELL MORE) to keep uploading more new files.
That's a reason. It pays the people who made SS what it is. It adds an incentive. It could bring more money back to the company.
-
If SS would give a raise now it would be a further incentive to focus more on SS and dry out the competition. They could achieve finally a total market domination. As such, it would make perfectly sense.
Yes, i also think it could work this way. A generous raise from SS at this point could damage a lot of the low earners trying to sell subscriptions, newcomers to subscriptions and DPC. Why buy a competitors site to close it down when you can drive them out of the market by keeping the contributors happy!
-
If SS would give a raise now it would be a further incentive to focus more on SS and dry out the competition. They could achieve finally a total market domination. As such, it would make perfectly sense.
Yes, i also think it could work this way. A generous raise from SS at this point could damage a lot of the low earners trying to sell subscriptions, newcomers to subscriptions and DPC. Why buy a competitors site to close it down when you can drive them out of the market by keeping the contributors happy!
That would be the iStock lesson. They went the opposite route though.
-
If enough of us do it (I started doing it, just to try it) maybe after time sales on those sites will start to rise. Which would mean more money for us.
Many calls for mobilisation of the troops have failed, there are too many contributors, and they are too scattered and they are not represented by one union.
As for putting your images elsewhere, if they cant find yours, they will pick someone elses. Dont think that your image is the image everyone is waiting for. Where your is not yours, but in general.
It wasn't meant to be a call for mobilisation. As I said, those never achieved much.
It was meant as an example how I hope (no proof that it is helping yet) to improve my own earnings - give images an opportunity to be seen on higher paying sites before they appear on the cheap sites.
My images are not special enough that I would expect anyone to search the web for them and change their buying behavior.
But as I said, if (big if) many contributors do the same, those higher paying sites over time will have a fresher looking collection, and that may appeal to some buyers.
Its just not going to happen. Mobilisation or not, you need to move at least 10-15 million images. You need thousands of contributors doing the same as yours. Even if you got a million images on other agencys, not available on Shutterstock, it wont do anything. Istock has millions of Exclusive content, and Shutterstock beat them comfortably in the last 3 years.
-
A raise would be welcome, obviously.
But I have a question: have you ever seen one agency raising the prices over time?
Prices yes (Istock recently), royalties yes (Photodune recently)
-
The days of universal pay rises in most organisations went away about five or six years ago. You now have to bring something else to the table. Also, SS have already made it clear that earnings (raises) are down to the individual to generate using the platform(s) they have provided.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141017 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141017)
-
A raise would be welcome, obviously.
But I have a question: have you ever seen one agency raising the prices over time?
Prices, yes, of course.
Percentages, not so sure ...
Yes, my error, I meant revenue for the contributor.
-
A raise is not at all unreasonable nor is it difficult to become real and definitely not a bad thing. A raise means only good business for contributors, customers and shutterstock as well( in any order you like), it's long overdue and we all deserve it! Just a thought.
-
What we will more likely get is a well deserved cut.
-
Profits were announced last Thursday.
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-4q-profit-forecasts-221324563.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-tops-4q-profit-forecasts-221324563.html[/url])
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.
8) 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" 8)
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :'(
-
8) 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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?
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am working on my raise. Just finished editing 800 images from my travel to France, now I am keywording them, I am sure they will raise my earnings. And then I have another few thousand to process. LOL.
-
I am working on my raise. Just finished editing 800 images from my travel to France, now I am keywording them, I am sure they will raise my earnings. And then I have another few thousand to process. LOL.
Did you spot Eiffel Tower :)
I was in Paris 2012 taking some blurry nightshots of Champs-Elysees.
-
A rise? you knowBigstockphoto ? because those are his intentions...
Nothing is forever, when Shutter begin losing money, losing clients, we will see changes... bad or good changes?... i dont know but they copy the Istock RC sistme to Bigstock sort time ago...
-
I was in Lot, Lourdes, Toulouse, Saint-cirq-lapopie, Carcassonne, Foix and the Pyrenees. It's absolutely brilliant there.
-
All agency need to keep the prize, but raise the % to contributor ! But I'm still dreaming ! Especially Istock for non-exclusive.
Adding more easy and realistic level rank with % increase on all agency would be great too. They need to keep us motivated. But they don't understand that !
-
Tyler asked and said before to please post a link to threads you are discussing that there is a link to so here it is.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145571&start=0[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145571&start=0[/url])
Thing with all the microstock people that are the ones complining is they never worked a real job in their life!
Some 90%-95% of the micro photogs work for themselves and never had a job where they were on a timeclock or piecerate or salaried!
Google offers this and then some for their employees as do many companies in the real world anymore because they have found out that happy employees are more productive and better overall for the company!
Once all of you micro photogs work as a blue collar worker as an employee for a company that doesn't offer these kind of benefits for 20 or so years and then you see these offers from companies you too would want to work for them.
So stop your crying because someone has what you don't have and do something about it!
All you full time self employed photogs set your own hours and do whatever you want when and how you want with no one to have to report to!
SS offers this as a perk for employees who do their job they get paid to do and they have someone to report to unlike you all do!
Being in the work force my entire life I would love to have had the chance to work for or with a company that treated their employees with a little respect and dignity and offered these type of company perks unlike many do.
The only ones you have to blame for your expenses going up are yourselves.
Micro cost should be dam near nothing for dam near any shoot you do.
Wow! I've worked a typical job like most people, saved my money and then risked it all to be self employed only to have to work three times harder morning till midnight 6 days a week to get where I am. I do all the jobs a small business does with several people and I don't get paid vacation leave, I don't get sick leave, I don't get health insurance or any type of retirement. If I just do what I want I don't make any money, all my time is spent working. I also have no security, however the market goes so does my income. I also have to pay more in taxes as I don't have an employer paying half like all other employed people. I also have to file taxes four times a year. As far as having someone to report to I have to report to thousands of buyers instead of one boss. Unlike people who have a typical job I have to constantly guess what I need to do to make money whenI worked as a graphic designer there was not guess work, you did what you were assigned. I f I guess wrong I have wasted time and money.
Even though I agree with the above (in that self-employment is not easy), you make it sound like being self-employed is a torture and a punishment. I assume you gave up employment to become self-employed for a reason: because you enjoy doing this work. However, the above doesn't sound like you're enjoying it at all. If so, why not go back to employment?
For the record, I don't agree with ruxpriencdiam, because he's making it sound like we sit back and do nothing all day.
I too experience the pressure of making ends meet if times are bad, it's no walk in the park. However, it's better than employment because of the freedom it gives me. I can accept any assignment I want, I get to work in my own time, whenever I want. Therefore I would never complain about it like you did.
-
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...
This is actually kind of along the lines of what I've ben thinking. Not a raise, but more of a bonus for people over a certain earnings level. Or it could be assessed annually, if your annual earnings are over some amount, you qualify. There's some incentive to keep up good work if bonus qualifications are regularly re-assessed.
-
All agency need to keep the prize, but raise the % to contributor ! But I'm still dreaming ! Especially Istock for non-exclusive.
Adding more easy and realistic level rank with % increase on all agency would be great too. They need to keep us motivated. But they don't understand that !
have you noticed the 402k new approvals at SS this week? it used to be half of that (200k), I really don't believe that contributors need any further motivations, actually I think that a few thousands joined recently once I don't see how it would be this huge with the same number of contributors (as you say less motivated producing fewer)
now imagine SS giving a raise, 1 Million per week?
-
have you noticed the 402k new approvals at SS this week? it used to be half of that (200k), I really don't believe that contributors need any further motivations, actually I think that a few thousands joined recently once I don't see how it would be this huge with the same number of contributors (as you say less motivated producing fewer)
now imagine SS giving a raise, 1 Million per week?
ya, like the telemarketing or on-line support where every end of the year they lay-off the whole crew and re-hire them next year to get govt subsidy for (quote)creating new jobs(unquote).
ask them for a raise and they politely show you the door.
-
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.
Yes. I agree. But once more the rumblings of contributors dissatisfaction are ignored and down the rabbit hole we go again.
-
Lets say they only raise the sub royalties. 2 cent on every tier, thats 8 cent. They had 125.9M DLs in 2014. Lets say 50% of those are subs. It would mean a $5M cost increase. No chance in hell there will be a raise. Even if its only $1M annually. They need to increase revenue, reduce cost and maximise profit. A raise does NOT fit that strategy.
-
Lets say they only raise the sub royalties. 2 cent on every tier, thats 8 cent. They had 125.9M DLs in 2014. Lets say 50% of those are subs. It would mean a $5M cost increase. No chance in hell there will be a raise. Even if its only $1M annually. They need to increase revenue, reduce cost and maximise profit. A raise does NOT fit that strategy.
True and I am sure this is their thinking. But it is very short term thinking. GETTY is the example of where short term thinking leads. If SS was smart, they would think long term and figure out that a small raise to top tier contribs would earn good will and also help producers of HCV images to stay in business and keep supplying them top quality work.
-
Lets say they only raise the sub royalties. 2 cent on every tier, thats 8 cent. They had 125.9M DLs in 2014. Lets say 50% of those are subs. It would mean a $5M cost increase. No chance in hell there will be a raise. Even if its only $1M annually. They need to increase revenue, reduce cost and maximise profit. A raise does NOT fit that strategy.
True and I am sure this is their thinking. But it is very short term thinking. GETTY is the example of where short term thinking leads. If SS was smart, they would think long term and figure out that a small raise to top tier contribs would earn good will and also help producers of HCV images to stay in business and keep supplying them top quality work.
Its no longer in SS hands, its the shareholders that decide. Look at what happened at eBay. Carl Icahn is a major shareholder and was putting up a fight with eBay to split up eBay and PayPal. He said eBay was holding back growth of PayPal. eBay said no, we wont split, the companies are stronger together. A year later eBay announced the split up of eBay and PayPal saying they think its best for both companies and made it sound as if it was their own decision. Right.
-
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...
This is actually kind of along the lines of what I've ben thinking. Not a raise, but more of a bonus for people over a certain earnings level. Or it could be assessed annually, if your annual earnings are over some amount, you qualify. There's some incentive to keep up good work if bonus qualifications are regularly re-assessed.
That does sound like an RC scheme. Exactly like IS and 123RF have implemented.
And I don't think that is a negative in itself. If IS had implemented that as additional bonus on top of the existing royalty percentages everyone would have applauded.
Something like that (you can win a bonus if you have a good year, but you can lose it again if the next year isn't as good) - without cutting into the existing royalties - would be a good move.
Motivating to produce more and saleable content, but no everlasting committment to the company.
-
...Something like that (you can win a bonus if you have a good year, but you can lose it again if the next year isn't as good) - without cutting into the existing royalties - would be a good move.
Motivating to produce more and saleable content, but no everlasting committment to the company.
I think it's the only realistic way we see anything that is even close to a "raise". An across-the-board pay raise isn't going to happen, I think we all know that. A bonus system could be interesting, though. It could have multiple milestones to affect the bonus too. Increase earnings by XX%, increase portfolio size, have a top-selling image, etc. The more milestones you hit, the better the bonus.
-
A raise by SS would be the best business move they could make. Every market leader has failed to maintain their position because they consistently take contributors for granted. What they don't realize is that despite the fact that contributors are really in no position to make demands of them, their primary concern is competition, not contributors.
With so many new agencies coming out, and many of them serious, as well as the massive acquisitions (Fotolia by Adobe), SS must innovate in order to maintain a leadership position. For example, all another agency has to do is provide a mixture of sales and exclusivity and many a contributor will happily try it out if it means 60% of the sales with double the profits per sale. I can't remember the exact number but it was something like over a dollar profit per download for SS - paying us contributors $0.25/download in that sort of market can't last, especially if another player comes in and says they will pay us $0.50 if we go exclusive with them.
Now, of course, no one is going to go and drop their other agencies for an unproven one - but let's use Fotolia for example. They are now Adobe - don't even call them Fotolia, call them Adobe. Adobe has a market cap of 40 billion dollars. Shutterstock has a market cap of 2 billion dollars. To maintain a competitive edge, don't you think Adobe would be happy to offer contributors $0.50 a download if we went exclusive with them? And don't you think Adobe could pull in the numbers given their reach?
At this point, in my opinion, this trend of lack of exclusivity is going to be overturned because right now, everyone is contributing to everyone. How can any company compete with SS if they have less sales? There is no incentive for the customer to purchase with them when they can go with SS. The only possible way to differentiate oneself with SS or other large companies is to provide either exclusive platforms or exclusive images. Adobe has access to exclusive platforms, so there's that.
But imagine what would happen if Adobe came out and said "we are offering exclusivity to all Fotolia contributors and paying $0.75 a subscription download and 30% for on demand downloads".
This forum would be rife with movement, and I can bet you a large, large number of people would "try" it out. Within a few months, customers would be finding less and less of what they want at SS and more and more of what they want at Fotolia.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is, the only way SS maintains its competitive edge is if all other stock agencies try to compete with them following the exact same formula. If another agency comes up with a better one, it is a game changer. This is why the bottom line is how much they are willing to share with contributors to remove any incentive to go with another agency. At $0.25, there is too much room for another player to move on it.
I strongly believe exclusivity is on its way back in, in some way or another.
-
I strongly believe exclusivity is on its way back in, in some way or another.
I think exclusivity is a factor for uncommon images at higher price points. I don't think buyers who are getting into micro subscriptions really care about exclusive images. They want the best selection at the lowest price.
We've reached a point where buyers are willing to accept images that are "good enough" if the price is low enough. Sure, there are exceptions, but seeing how SS has skyrocketing growth and GI/IS seems to be in a downward spiral being forced to compete on price, exclusive doesn't seem to matter.
-
It's not that every image in itself matters - it's differentiating your agency from another. Competing agencies have to, in essence, "steal" from SS so that they have some form of consumer monopoly. Right now, no one has a consumer monopoly because everyone is submitting to everyone.
And the way you buy a consumer monopoly is the provide exclusivity in some way or another. I don't disagree with anything you're saying - but as a competing agency, they can charge the same amount to customers as SS does and pay contributors more in order to get that consumer monopoly.
The biggest problem is every new agency is trying to do that exact same thing, but without exclusivity. So no matter how much they offer contributors, they don't get the sales because they can offer nothing to customers SS can't. All an agency would need is a massive marketing blitz where they offer incentives for contributors to only contribute to them and at the same time get customers to buy from them. They do that just once, and it permanently changes the landscape.
This is why I keep mentioning Adobe because they are actually in a position to do exactly this. The only way SS can compete is to increase payouts to contributors.
-
It's not that every image in itself matters - it's differentiating your agency from another. Competing agencies have to, in essence, "steal" from SS so that they have some form of consumer monopoly. Right now, no one has a consumer monopoly because everyone is submitting to everyone.
And the way you buy a consumer monopoly is the provide exclusivity in some way or another. I don't disagree with anything you're saying - but as a competing agency, they can charge the same amount to customers as SS does and pay contributors more in order to get that consumer monopoly.
The biggest problem is every new agency is trying to do that exact same thing, but without exclusivity. So no matter how much they offer contributors, they don't get the sales because they can offer nothing to customers SS can't. All an agency would need is a massive marketing blitz where they offer incentives for contributors to only contribute to them and at the same time get customers to buy from them. They do that just once, and it permanently changes the landscape.
This is why I keep mentioning Adobe because they are actually in a position to do exactly this. The only way SS can compete is to increase payouts to contributors.
+1.
-
Semmick Photo is correct in his statement that if you want a raise you'd better get producing new photos. As somebody that has engaged in semipro day trading for years to help keep the bills paid I can tell you that Shutterstock is watched by a million vultures just like me waiting for the day it becomes a viable short candidate, which is where the real misery story begins. And stock photography has so much free info on line now that amateurs (in many cases) are putting up as good or better stuff than the so called pros. Luckily I only do stock as a hobby, so I am not concerned about payouts, but I do wish it paid a lot better, but unfortunately that is not the case and I don't see things getter any better..... I see pros scrambling to add additional services just to keep the lights on. I also have bought up some nice used equipment lately from (now former) full-time pros closing up shop claiming that the money is just not there anymore.
-
...The only possible way to differentiate oneself with SS or other large companies is to provide either exclusive platforms or exclusive images. Adobe has access to exclusive platforms, so there's that...
There are other ways, at least on the vector side of things. SS has always lagged behind in terms of what they offer the customer. They only just recently began allowing a jpg download of a vector file from the same page as the vector version, something that other companies shave done for years. They also still insist on vector files with text have the text converted to shapes (meaning you can't easily change the text to something else), while other companies also have allowed these types of fully editable files for years. And more and more I hear from customers wanting these fully editable files and not being able to get them at SS.
My point is that there is still plenty of room for improvement and innovation in terms of how companies present and deliver stock content. SS doesn't do it perfectly. And who knows, maybe they're working on some innovations of their own. I'm just saying that there are other ways a company can distinguish itself from SS and others, beyond exclusivity.
-
There are lots of minor things that can be improved upon that will affect the bottom line in a minor way - SS need not act upon these things to stay afloat. The real bottom line is consumer monopoly, and the only way to generate a consumer monopoly is to attract contributors to your honeycomb, and only your honeycomb.
-
+1.
There is an agree button above each post, saves you having to quote whole posts with just a "+1" or "agree" under them, kind of clogs up threads. Glad I could help.
-
This is why I keep mentioning Adobe because they are actually in a position to do exactly this. The only way SS can compete is to increase payouts to contributors.
Even so, SS would never raise commission before Adobe does anything. SS doesn't need to, at least not until Adobe makes a move.
-
I think you've got a good point.
Here's my answer to the raise. Offer discounted stock options.
I guess the next level added or anything that's incentive based, can be nothing but a gift or be seem like the RC which I'd hate to see. I mean, yeah, we'll pay you an incentive bonus for sales growth, but you can't make it because of the new and continuing competition. Offering something that can't be accomplished, isn't offering anything.
So my latest brainstorm (hesitant to say it's a good idea) is stock options.
This is why I keep mentioning Adobe because they are actually in a position to do exactly this. The only way SS can compete is to increase payouts to contributors.
Even so, SS would never raise commission before Adobe does anything. SS doesn't need to, at least not until Adobe makes a move.
-
Lets say they only raise the sub royalties. 2 cent on every tier, thats 8 cent. They had 125.9M DLs in 2014. Lets say 50% of those are subs. It would mean a $5M cost increase. No chance in hell there will be a raise. Even if its only $1M annually. They need to increase revenue, reduce cost and maximise profit. A raise does NOT fit that strategy.
True and I am sure this is their thinking. But it is very short term thinking. GETTY is the example of where short term thinking leads. If SS was smart, they would think long term and figure out that a small raise to top tier contribs would earn good will and also help producers of HCV images to stay in business and keep supplying them top quality work.
so what does reduce cost entail??? none of that spiffy surrounding of HO??? who is going to speak for the contributors??? would IT give up that comfy life and get the system back to running...
so downloads are back to the ss old standard???
once you are so used to all that freebie perks at HO, you can forget about the real ppl who is paying for your comfort viz you and me the cheap jack-ass running the watermill >:(
-
Lets say they only raise the sub royalties. 2 cent on every tier, thats 8 cent. They had 125.9M DLs in 2014. Lets say 50% of those are subs. It would mean a $5M cost increase. No chance in hell there will be a raise. Even if its only $1M annually. They need to increase revenue, reduce cost and maximise profit. A raise does NOT fit that strategy.
True and I am sure this is their thinking. But it is very short term thinking. GETTY is the example of where short term thinking leads. If SS was smart, they would think long term and figure out that a small raise to top tier contribs would earn good will and also help producers of HCV images to stay in business and keep supplying them top quality work.
so what does reduce cost entail??? none of that spiffy surrounding of HO??? who is going to speak for the contributors??? would IT give up that comfy life and get the system back to running...
so downloads are back to the ss old standard???
once you are so used to all that freebie perks at HO, you can forget about the real ppl who is paying for your comfort viz you and me the cheap jack-ass running the watermill >:(
I would assume their biggest costs are paying contributors and advertising.
-
The options would have to be REALLY discounted, because the stock is pretty volatile lately.
-
I don't want discount stock options, cute incentives like software, electronics, or whatever. The only raise I want or need is MONEY. That's how I pay my bills.
If I have enough leftover I can decide what kind of bonus gift I want to buy myself.
-
I don't want discount stock options, cute incentives like software, electronics, or whatever. The only raise I want or need is MONEY. That's how I pay my bills.
If I have enough leftover I can decide what kind of bonus gift I want to buy myself.
+10
-
Since I'm on a devil's advocate kick with SS today, here's another thought on this subject:
I think getting a raise at Shutterstock might be the worst thing that could possibly happen to microstock. Hear me out...
Imagine we get a raise tomorrow. Everything goes up my 10% or something like that. Everyone "woo-yays", we sing the praises of the SS HQ staff and thank them. And everyone feels a renewed vigor with SS, uploads increase, loyalty to the company goes up, and all-around joy-joy feelings towards Shutterstock spread across the microstock landscape.
Is that a good thing? Maybe in the short term. But SS already has a huge edge on the competition when it comes to contributor loyalty. Despite not paying particularly well per sale, SS is still often referred to as the best company in the business, even among contributors. And certainly for some valid reasons. But certainly not in terms of RPD.
So the edge SS has on the competition increases as more and more contributors are increasingly inclined to focus their efforts on producing work with SS in mind, in light of the new (modest) financial incentive to do so.
In a way, one could argue that SS offering a raise could possibly help them increase their dominance in the market, making it harder and harder for smaller companies who pay far better per sale gain any sort of increased share of the market.
I have to wonder if this bit of contributor dissatisfaction with SS and what they pay is actually good for the market as a whole. Certainly it has to be for me personally. Over the last few years I've seen my income from SS slip to 45% of my total microstock earnings (in previous years SS made up 55% of my monthly microstock total). And the more SS slips and companies who pay better per sale gain, the better I do overall.
I hate to say it but part of me doesn't want SS do do any better. And since I can see how maybe giving us a raise helps them do better, maybe it's really in my best interest to never get a raise from SS, keep that bit of collective contributor frustration alive, and let that frustration continue to keep people looking for other avenues to license their work where they can get better pay.
Just a thought...
-
IS has the worse RPD among all 6 agencies I work with. They should be the ones this anger should be directed to, in the first place.
-
Lets say they only raise the sub royalties. 2 cent on every tier, thats 8 cent. They had 125.9M DLs in 2014. Lets say 50% of those are subs. It would mean a $5M cost increase. No chance in hell there will be a raise. Even if its only $1M annually. They need to increase revenue, reduce cost and maximise profit. A raise does NOT fit that strategy.
True and I am sure this is their thinking. But it is very short term thinking. GETTY is the example of where short term thinking leads. If SS was smart, they would think long term and figure out that a small raise to top tier contribs would earn good will and also help producers of HCV images to stay in business and keep supplying them top quality work.
so what does reduce cost entail??? none of that spiffy surrounding of HO??? who is going to speak for the contributors??? would IT give up that comfy life and get the system back to running...
so downloads are back to the ss old standard???
once you are so used to all that freebie perks at HO, you can forget about the real ppl who is paying for your comfort viz you and me the cheap jack-ass running the watermill >:(
Que? I honestly havent the slightest idea of what you are saying.
-
Since I'm on a devil's advocate kick with SS today, here's another thought on this subject:
I think getting a raise at Shutterstock might be the worst thing that could possibly happen to microstock. Hear me out...
Imagine we get a raise tomorrow. Everything goes up my 10% or something like that. Everyone "woo-yays", we sing the praises of the SS HQ staff and thank them. And everyone feels a renewed vigor with SS, uploads increase, loyalty to the company goes up, and all-around joy-joy feelings towards Shutterstock spread across the microstock landscape.
Is that a good thing? Maybe in the short term. But SS already has a huge edge on the competition when it comes to contributor loyalty. Despite not paying particularly well per sale, SS is still often referred to as the best company in the business, even among contributors. And certainly for some valid reasons. But certainly not in terms of RPD.
So the edge SS has on the competition increases as more and more contributors are increasingly inclined to focus their efforts on producing work with SS in mind, in light of the new (modest) financial incentive to do so.
In a way, one could argue that SS offering a raise could possibly help them increase their dominance in the market, making it harder and harder for smaller companies who pay far better per sale gain any sort of increased share of the market.
I have to wonder if this bit of contributor dissatisfaction with SS and what they pay is actually good for the market as a whole. Certainly it has to be for me personally. Over the last few years I've seen my income from SS slip to 45% of my total microstock earnings (in previous years SS made up 55% of my monthly microstock total). And the more SS slips and companies who pay better per sale gain, the better I do overall.
I hate to say it but part of me doesn't want SS do do any better. And since I can see how maybe giving us a raise helps them do better, maybe it's really in my best interest to never get a raise from SS, keep that bit of collective contributor frustration alive, and let that frustration continue to keep people looking for other avenues to license their work where they can get better pay.
Just a thought...
Valid point Mike. I would like to add, to the bolded part, that the influx of uploads might actually delude our earnings more and nullify any raise we would get.
-
In the absence of a raise how about seeing more downloads in BRIC and MINT - the fabled new markets every European and American business is always blathering on about?
Brazil,Russia,India,China - Mexico,Indonesia,Nigeria and Turkey
-
IS has the worse RPD among all 6 agencies I work with. They should be the ones this anger should be directed to, in the first place.
Istock gets plenty of the share of anger. Nobody forgot how they treat us. It's a newish thing, this frustration at SS, but people been mad at IS for years.
-
Since I'm on a devil's advocate kick with SS today, here's another thought on this subject:
I think getting a raise at Shutterstock might be the worst thing that could possibly happen to microstock. Hear me out...
Valid point Mike. I would like to add, to the bolded part, that the influx of uploads might actually delude our earnings more and nullify any raise we would get.
I don't know. My earnings at SS are pretty deluded already. They seem to think it is 2006 and heading toward 2005. :'(
-
We need a new site to come along with fresh new ideas. And one that has deep pockets and is fair to submitters, And what I mean By fair is 50% across the board and if any site can't make it with 50% profit ?....Forget it. Don't waste your time or Ours. We got enough So Called players Now. No Need for another. Only One Player I can see that can change the landscape and thats Adobe. They could easily dominate the consumer and contributor monopoly. Easily
-
In the absence of a raise how about seeing more downloads in BRIC and MINT - the fabled new markets every European and American business is always blathering on about?
Brazil,Russia,India,China - Mexico,Indonesia,Nigeria and Turkey
I'm not sure that pumping files into those places helps a lot, given the strength of intellectual property protection in many of them.
-
We need a new site to come along with fresh new ideas. And one that has deep pockets and is fair to submitters, And what I mean By fair is 50% across the board and if any site can't make it with 50% profit ?....Forget it. Don't waste your time or Ours. We got enough So Called players Now. No Need for another. Only One Player I can see that can change the landscape and thats Adobe. They could easily dominate the consumer and contributor monopoly. Easily
Stocksy and Canva. Are you submitting to them?
-
We had an agency that had easy and fast upload, the option to set our own price and paying us 52% royalty!
What did we do? upload our stuff elsewhere to get that quick fix then complain for not having sales at GL (Graphic Leftovers) and eventually quit them. Did we guide buyers to GL? Don't you think the 52% is worth the extra effort from our end? Did we use this very forum as a leverage to guide buyers? We still don't to this day.
Did we give them any chance by uploading files exclusively for a certain amount of time? Nope again, looking for that quick fix is all that seems to matter these day, like junkies. 52% of nothing is nothing. WTH do you expect anyway when your same work is up much cheaper elsewhere. Buyers are still willing to pay big bucks if you only guide them. Those of you who are also in macro (which are not much better then micro's these days but used to) or sell their work via POD or even sell on their own know what I am talking about.
Imagine SS, FT, IS and DT paying us 50%. That could mean turning a half-time income into a full-time income.
How many still feel good about themselves working in this industry? How much more does it take before you take action?
Do we still have any self respect or value our work? I think many are just keeping up appearances.
But hey it's all good right, you're doing fine, you have no rejections, you sell well, you're so good at this. Until you realise how much more you should be making with your work.
Take care lads, all the best!
-
We had an agency that had easy and fast upload, the option to set our own price and paying us 52% royalty!
What did we do? upload our stuff elsewhere to get that quick fix then complain for not having sales at GL (Graphic Leftovers) and eventually quit them. Did we guide buyers to GL? Don't you think the 52% is worth the extra effort from our end? Did we use this very forum as a leverage to guide buyers? We still don't to this day.
Did we give them any chance by uploading files exclusively for a certain amount of time? Nope again, looking for that quick fix is all that seems to matter these day, like junkies. 52% of nothing is nothing. WTH do you expect anyway when your same work is up much cheaper elsewhere. Buyers are still willing to pay big bucks if you only guide them. Those of you who are also in macro (which are not much better then micro's these days but used to) or sell their work via POD or even sell on their own know what I am talking about.
Imagine SS, FT, IS and DT paying us 50%. That could mean turning a half-time income into a full-time income.
How many still feel good about themselves working in this industry? How much more does it take before you take action?
Do we still have any self respect or value our work? I think many are just keeping up appearances.
But hey it's all good right, you're doing fine, you have no rejections, you sell well, you're so good at this. Until you realise how much more you should be making with your work.
Take care lads, all the best!
After the Google Getty deal was revealed, loads of people uploaded to GL including me. It was widely communicated on this forum. But the only thing that happened was that GL couldnt handle the influx. After that Google changed their search algorithm killing their traffic. After that GL suspended all uploads.
No one to blame here.
-
...And what I mean By fair is 50% across the board and if any site can't make it with 50% profit ?....Forget it. Don't waste your time or Ours...
That's been my policy for a while now. It's 50% minimum or save your keystrokes emailing me asking for my images. It's not going to happen.
The myth of agencies needing the majority of revenue from each sale is dead. We all know it's B.S. Anyone new wants to take a shot at this stock game, those are the new minimum terms. 50% or don't bother.
-
We had an agency that had easy and fast upload, the option to set our own price and paying us 52% royalty!
What did we do? upload our stuff elsewhere to get that quick fix then complain for not having sales at GL (Graphic Leftovers) and eventually quit them...
GL isn't exactly a good example of a squandered opportunity. They had their own internal problems, poor branding (the original name didn't suggest "premium" content), some kind of search meltdown and poor placement in Google, etc. Sure we can always say we should have supported them better, but in the end I think their undoing was mostly their own fault.
...Did we use this very forum as a leverage to guide buyers? We still don't to this day.
Did we give them any chance by uploading files exclusively for a certain amount of time? Nope again, looking for that quick fix is all that seems to matter these day, like junkies. 52% of nothing is nothing. WTH do you expect anyway when your same work is up much cheaper elsewhere. Buyers are still willing to pay big bucks if you only guide them...
Agreed wholeheartedly. Our biggest failure as a community has always been (in my opinion) our failure to turn our collective frustration into something positive. We're a community of complainers, and surely I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But when it comes down to doing something, we largely don't do enough or anything at all.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now.
The point was, though, that I thought if we could all make some sort of effort to drive customers in a certain direction, towards more fair companies that offer the best mutually beneficial experience for both buyers and contributors, that the collective strength of the community would make a difference.
We know that individually we can make a difference. Referral programs prove that. I know I've personally referred at least 100 buyers to Stockfresh and Creative Market combined. Imagine if everyone on this forum referred 100 buyers to good agencies. Or even 10 buyers. Those numbers add up.
The reality is, we won't ever do that. We won't ever agree on which companies to focus on, and in past discussions about this some people actually think that Shutterstock is the company we should be referring buyers to, despite SS paying largely unimpressive royalties. And as long as we can't agree on even the most basic things like who the best companies are (from a contributor standpoint) then we'll never get beyond that point to make anything good happen.
We also won't do anything to put our work where it does the most good. I think if everyone made a minimal effort to change upload behavior, it would make a difference. I try to push stuff to Creative Market first, and to offer more with each file at CM than I do elsewhere. I have a really good selling set of 9 vector badges that I sell everywhere, but CM I added 3 more badges that are only available there. And I offer PSD versions of many of my images at CM, something I don't offer anywhere else. It matters. If someone really wants a PSD version or a fully editable text version (SS and others don't allow vectors to retain editable text), they'll go to CM to get it. When someone contacts me asking about why the file they bought at SS doesn't have editable text, I tell them exactly why and where they can get fully editable files in the future. And you know what? They go there to buy those files next time.
We can affect buyer behavior if we try. And if we combined our efforts and rallied around a couple of the best companies, it would absolutely make a positive difference for us in the long term.
I think GL was the victim of their own failures, but other companies will fall victim to our failures if we continue to only look at short-term gains and ignore the long-term health of the business.
-
Imagine SS, FT, IS and DT paying us 50%. That could mean turning a half-time income into a full-time income.
How many still feel good about themselves working in this industry? How much more does it take before you take action?
Do we still have any self respect or value our work? I think many are just keeping up appearances.
But hey it's all good right, you're doing fine, you have no rejections, you sell well, you're so good at this. Until you realise how much more you should be making with your work.
how much self respect do the fishermen have these days collecting welfare after the dredgers from off-shore came to fish with their mowers to kill everything on the seabed leaving nothing ???
how much self respect is left with the amazon clear-cut wiping off the forest into bare desert???
we face the same future keeping up appearances i guess...
feeling good that we made a few millionaires out of our hard work
and gave some goofball a gym and nice sofa 8)
cold comfort :-X
-
I took GL as an example because they have been with us for quite some time now but of course it goes for every contributor friendly agency out there.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now
That seems to be the issue with some of the more contributor friendly agencies, not willing to go all the way.
Stocksy seems to be only one that has succeeded in this. I am not with them and maybe never will be but I'm glad agencies like that can still exist in this market.
-
I took GL as an example because they have been with us for quite some time now but of course it goes for every contributor friendly agency out there.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now
That seems to be the issue with some of the more contributor friendly agencies, not willing to go all the way.
Stocksy seems to be only one that has succeeded in this. I am not with them and maybe never will be but I'm glad agencies like that can still exist in this market.
I very Much Agree. I mean really...If a company Can't make a living On 50% of something they don't even produce themselves? Thats pretty Bad business. Sorry.
-
I took GL as an example because they have been with us for quite some time now but of course it goes for every contributor friendly agency out there.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now
That seems to be the issue with some of the more contributor friendly agencies, not willing to go all the way.
Stocksy seems to be only one that has succeeded in this. I am not with them and maybe never will be but I'm glad agencies like that can still exist in this market.
I very Much Agree. I mean really...If a company Can't make a living On 50% of something they don't even produce themselves? Thats pretty Bad business. Sorry.
It more than making a living. They want luxury, free pizza, free massages, free gym, free insurance, and more free benefits. Some one needs to remind them it is not free; we are paying for it. If they cut all the corporate freebies and luxuries;they could afford to support their contributors!
-
I took GL as an example because they have been with us for quite some time now but of course it goes for every contributor friendly agency out there.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now
That seems to be the issue with some of the more contributor friendly agencies, not willing to go all the way.
Stocksy seems to be only one that has succeeded in this. I am not with them and maybe never will be but I'm glad agencies like that can still exist in this market.
I very Much Agree. I mean really...If a company Can't make a living On 50% of something they don't even produce themselves? Thats pretty Bad business. Sorry.
It more than making a living. They want luxury, free pizza, free massages, free gym, free insurance, and more free benefits. Some one needs to remind them it is not free; we are paying for it. If they cut all the corporate freebies and luxuries;they could afford to support their contributors!
I think that they could well afford to provide us with a fair share of revenue, if they cut back on the Non-Cash Equity-Based Compensation they have been granting themselves in the form of SSTK stock options at a cost of $0 to themselves. http://tinyurl.com/p9uozmm (http://tinyurl.com/p9uozmm)
Non-Cash Equity-Based Compensation amounted to approx $6,943,352,598.00 in 2014.
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
-
I want to move forward with productive ideas on how to monetize our images effectively.
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
+10 We need more "fuel" so we can all continue to be in this business!
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
your raise below!
Every day, contributors in 150 countries submit photos, vectors, illustrations, and videos for our 1.2 million customers to explore, share, and download. With more than 500 million all-time downloads, it’s important that we look at our global, two-sided marketplace to offer new insight for our most important stakeholders — the Shutterstock contributors.
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report)
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
your raise below!
Every day, contributors in 150 countries submit photos, vectors, illustrations, and videos for our 1.2 million customers to explore, share, and download. With more than 500 million all-time downloads, it’s important that we look at our global, two-sided marketplace to offer new insight for our most important stakeholders — the Shutterstock contributors.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report[/url])
ROFL!! What PR hack wrote that load of bollocks?!!
-
Well sorry, but I have to agree with Pixelbytes there.
-
32.5 Mil in 2011, 83 .6 in 2014. Trouble is. WE made more money in 2011 than we do now. They made More.So...In my little brain, every theory or conspiracy is wrong. all except One. More Images to dilute our earnings,Smaller piece of the pie than we had in 2011,2010,2009,2008,2007 and 2006 and there piece is bigger.And that as far as I see it will just get worse with 450,000 a week, and better for them. So it goes. Congrats SS, Sorry guys. It also seems that everything they do is geared for shareholders eyes, Not ours. There bottom Line goes up... Ours goes down. everything they do is a business expense , so is ours. Problem with that is, we have no Profit after we write off our expenses . If you add in time spent Including {resubmitting] equipment,processing software,And all the other stuff. Then it becomes a Hobby and you can't write that off.
I just had my taxes done, My guy for 22 years asks me the last 3 years "Why do you do this? You make 80% more in a month doing clients and your many other Projects than this stock thing the last 3 years"
I say...."I don't know, Maybe it will turn around again" He said..."Good luck with That" and thank your Lucky stars you have Music copyrights that pay you with zero expenses.
i don't know guys, The future is weird, More sales,More countries and Many More Mouths to feed. It just doesn't seen sustainable unless there is a better commission Based on tiers. Theres only a certain amount of resources and food for everyone. The saving grace is...If your smart, cost effective,Go with trends,Be unique,Do the work and Lots of it you can get by. Maybe not Like the past, But....The past is dead My friends.
Stock is fun....You can shoot anything unlike client work, Just wish it was better to justify all the issues and hoops and headaches we have to jump through.And that goes for every site, SS is still the best of the best But, For how long? Thats the question. 75,000 submitters...90% making 200/400 a month more or less. We need to adjust and take this as it is now. at least I do. Im just not good with change or at least change I can't control.
-
Interesting to see how little of the money goes to American suppliers, and also to UK and Germany. By inference by far the largest portion goes to Russia, Baltic States, ex Eastern Bloc, where we know that many of the high volume producers, factories live.
Those Countries have seen their currencies plunge by 20% to 30% against the Dollar over the past year, effectively giving them a 20% to 30% pay rise in local currency. Those guys probably have massive smiles on their faces as they are earning 20% to 30% more than last year. They won't be joining in the call for a raise from Shutterstock, because they are already creaming in the dough.
-
I read an article recently that quoted Oringer saying he's glad SS can offer a living to people in developing countries. It was clear he didn't see his crowd sourcing model as a sustainable source of income in expensive countries. I wish I could find the article.
-
Interesting to see how little of the money goes to American suppliers, and also to UK and Germany. By inference by far the largest portion goes to Russia, Baltic States, ex Eastern Bloc, where we know that many of the high volume producers, factories live.
Those Countries have seen their currencies plunge by 20% to 30% against the Dollar over the past year, effectively giving them a 20% to 30% pay rise in local currency. Those guys probably have massive smiles on their faces as they are earning 20% to 30% more than last year. They won't be joining in the call for a raise from Shutterstock, because they are already creaming in the dough.
Sorry, you were right in every word you wrote from your perspective but you have to spread the frame and add more numbers on this to get a clearer picture.
Have you considered, again from another perspective, that dollar has not even reached its state against local currencies from lets say 2009. and that pay rise that you are mentioning is objectively nothing less but partial covering of the loss of huge dollar plunge that those people experienced in all those years.
And it was almost up to 50% in some of those places at some points.
People from those countries lost at least 20%-30% on all last 6 years work just on currency exchange rate.
Another thing, lets say that one of those "factories"had to take a loan to start few years ago, only reasonable option was offered only in foreign currency
because unfortunately home country doesn't own any banks anymore after the recent sell out.
And ti di di di dit, that currency is getting 35% up. Lucky them...those guys probably have massive smiles on their faces ;)
Somehow I feel that unfortunately % of those smiling in the industry at this time is not much of a number and that you targeted wrong smiling group. ;D
-
We had an agency that had easy and fast upload, the option to set our own price and paying us 52% royalty!
What did we do? upload our stuff elsewhere to get that quick fix then complain for not having sales at GL (Graphic Leftovers) and eventually quit them...
GL isn't exactly a good example of a squandered opportunity. They had their own internal problems, poor branding (the original name didn't suggest "premium" content), some kind of search meltdown and poor placement in Google, etc. Sure we can always say we should have supported them better, but in the end I think their undoing was mostly their own fault.
...Did we use this very forum as a leverage to guide buyers? We still don't to this day.
Did we give them any chance by uploading files exclusively for a certain amount of time? Nope again, looking for that quick fix is all that seems to matter these day, like junkies. 52% of nothing is nothing. WTH do you expect anyway when your same work is up much cheaper elsewhere. Buyers are still willing to pay big bucks if you only guide them...
Agreed wholeheartedly. Our biggest failure as a community has always been (in my opinion) our failure to turn our collective frustration into something positive. We're a community of complainers, and surely I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But when it comes down to doing something, we largely don't do enough or anything at all.
A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now.
The point was, though, that I thought if we could all make some sort of effort to drive customers in a certain direction, towards more fair companies that offer the best mutually beneficial experience for both buyers and contributors, that the collective strength of the community would make a difference.
We know that individually we can make a difference. Referral programs prove that. I know I've personally referred at least 100 buyers to Stockfresh and Creative Market combined. Imagine if everyone on this forum referred 100 buyers to good agencies. Or even 10 buyers. Those numbers add up.
The reality is, we won't ever do that. We won't ever agree on which companies to focus on, and in past discussions about this some people actually think that Shutterstock is the company we should be referring buyers to, despite SS paying largely unimpressive royalties. And as long as we can't agree on even the most basic things like who the best companies are (from a contributor standpoint) then we'll never get beyond that point to make anything good happen.
We also won't do anything to put our work where it does the most good. I think if everyone made a minimal effort to change upload behavior, it would make a difference. I try to push stuff to Creative Market first, and to offer more with each file at CM than I do elsewhere. I have a really good selling set of 9 vector badges that I sell everywhere, but CM I added 3 more badges that are only available there. And I offer PSD versions of many of my images at CM, something I don't offer anywhere else. It matters. If someone really wants a PSD version or a fully editable text version (SS and others don't allow vectors to retain editable text), they'll go to CM to get it. When someone contacts me asking about why the file they bought at SS doesn't have editable text, I tell them exactly why and where they can get fully editable files in the future. And you know what? They go there to buy those files next time.
We can affect buyer behavior if we try. And if we combined our efforts and rallied around a couple of the best companies, it would absolutely make a positive difference for us in the long term.
I think GL was the victim of their own failures, but other companies will fall victim to our failures if we continue to only look at short-term gains and ignore the long-term health of the business.
Can you please give some positive name to this post and open as separate topic for those interested to continue the conversation in this direction...
I can only promise to join the conversation so there will at least be 2 of us and that's already at least 50% more people than I seen in some topics in history.
Gave you +1 btw ;D
-
Interesting to see how little of the money goes to American suppliers, and also to UK and Germany. By inference by far the largest portion goes to Russia, Baltic States, ex Eastern Bloc, where we know that many of the high volume producers, factories live.
Those Countries have seen their currencies plunge by 20% to 30% against the Dollar over the past year, effectively giving them a 20% to 30% pay rise in local currency. Those guys probably have massive smiles on their faces as they are earning 20% to 30% more than last year. They won't be joining in the call for a raise from Shutterstock, because they are already creaming in the dough.
The eastern euro Submitters, ukraine,Russia etc,etc have always from day One been the dominate suppliers of the best Glamour,Fashion and processing skills in all of Microstock , this has been clear for 10 years. Hands down the best. I was watching people from there 9 years ago and was always blown away with the skill level compared to everywhere and anyone else. These folks have a "LOOK" that you can spot, If ya know what to look for. Good for them!!!!!!!
-
Rinderart: "75,000 submitters...90% making 200/400 a month more or less"
Or Less
5% of the people are making 90% of the income. The MSG poll represents the top 5% of all people in microstock. (in other words the people here, are the top of the best.)
When I could read the numbers for IS, over 50% of the submitters Never Reached Payout! Not once. At that time the reviews on SS and IS were equally difficult.
Later years, the number of people with 1000 or less images on SS (2012) was 90%!
Yes only 10% of the SS members had 1000 or more images in 2012.
Only 4% of Independents on IS had over 1000 images. 64% of the IS independent artists had under 250 downloads, lifetime.
If your earnings were higher in 2012, there's a good reason. The competition was weak and small.
2012 SS had 20 million Images, now there are 50 million. That's not just a 150% increase, it's 30 million NEW images! Percentages just don't explain 30 million new images in the same dramatic way.
Slice of the pie is much smaller for everyone.
-
2012 SS had 20 million Images, now there are 50 million. That's not just a 150% increase, it's 30 million NEW images! Percentages just don't explain 30 million new images in the same dramatic way.
Slice of the pie is much smaller for everyone.
But there are many more buyers, too. I mean, I guess, I don't have any numbers. So, slice of the pie is not that much smaller. Just this demand and supply thing.
If you have good quality pictures, even with increased supply, you can benefit from increased demand.
-
The eastern euro Submitters, ukraine,Russia etc,etc have always from day One been the dominate suppliers of the best Glamour,Fashion and processing skills in all of Microstock , this has been clear for 10 years. Hands down the best. I was watching people from there 9 years ago and was always blown away with the skill level compared to everywhere and anyone else. These folks have a "LOOK" that you can spot, If ya know what to look for. Good for them!!!!!!!
How do they compare in terms of creativity? I ask because on the vector side, in my opinion, the most creative and innovative stuff comes out of the US, Canada, the west in general.
Just wondering where the most creative ideas in stock photography seem to be coming from.
-
I don't think so Much for creative perse' Just gorgeous to see and admire.don't know about Vectors and stuff But Fashion,Glamour and retouching are just off the chart good. it kinda started with Dolgachev,Kurhan, Anna Subbotina and so many others. Theres just a distinctive look with a certain group, Sean Forgiss wife is awfully good also.I personally Love really good glamour work.My Fav, Sorry, back to Raise topic.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-195826p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-195826p1.html)
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
your raise below!
Every day, contributors in 150 countries submit photos, vectors, illustrations, and videos for our 1.2 million customers to explore, share, and download. With more than 500 million all-time downloads, it’s important that we look at our global, two-sided marketplace to offer new insight for our most important stakeholders — the Shutterstock contributors.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-report[/url])
ROFL!! What PR hack wrote that load of bollocks?!!
i think the board of directors and primary shareholders must have misread that some of us contributors
have in our office ...
- a gym (weights made out of canned food)
- a sauna ( office is in the backyard with aluminium roof , same makeshift hut where plant fertilizer is stored)
- day-care center ( grandparents looking after kids )
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
They're not expecting anything. It's just happening. The supply is getting bigger and bigger, why would they change anything?
-
I just wish istock drop the stupid RC system that don't help contributor at all ! That's a shame from istock. The canister level was way better. I was diamond and the RC system implement made me remove my exclusivity because the sales were dropping a lot and I couldnt make the RC level I wanted to be.
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
They're not expecting anything. It's just happening. The supply is getting bigger and bigger, why would they change anything?
Right. They have zero risk and in fact could cut our commissions and still be in excellent shape. Simply put, not enough contributors would leave. It is a shame. I don't think there's a serious contributor who wouldn't want a raise, let alone those who deserve one.
-
The eastern euro Submitters, ukraine,Russia etc,etc have always from day One been the dominate suppliers of the best Glamour,Fashion and processing skills in all of Microstock , this has been clear for 10 years. Hands down the best. I was watching people from there 9 years ago and was always blown away with the skill level compared to everywhere and anyone else. These folks have a "LOOK" that you can spot, If ya know what to look for. Good for them!!!!!!!
How do they compare in terms of creativity? I ask because on the vector side, in my opinion, the most creative and innovative stuff comes out of the US, Canada, the west in general.
Just wondering where the most creative ideas in stock photography seem to be coming from.
I think Eastern Europe and Russia has some of the best creatives working today, especially some of the illustrators.
I just did a search for "illustration" on SS and sorted by most recent, clicking on illustrations I thought were good. Every one that jumped out on the first few pages was from Russia or Eastern Europe:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2634025p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2634025p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1194743p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1194743p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2719327p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2719327p1.html)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2456114p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-2456114p1.html)
Give it a try.
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
They're not expecting anything. It's just happening. The supply is getting bigger and bigger, why would they change anything?
Exactly. Contributors continue to, at best, get no improvement in contractual benefits while mostly seeing benefits taken away and royalties drop. But hoards of new contributors are joining and existing contributors are still submitting record numbers of images. To SS, there is no problem and no reason to change anything with contributors.
As long as so many people are happy working an immense number of hours to create and submit thousands of images to make $10 a month nothing will change. I wonder what would happen if all of the unprofitable contributors suddenly stopped submitting. Just curious if it's the ton of contributors or the image factories that are responsible for the flood of images.
-
As long as so many people are happy working an immense number of hours to create and submit thousands of images to make $10 a month nothing will change. I wonder what would happen if all of the unprofitable contributors suddenly stopped submitting. Just curious if it's the ton of contributors or the image factories that are responsible for the flood of images.
i can answer that for you PW...
many years ago in the days when telemarketing started, a bunch of managers told the owners the same thing about treating the call center agents more decently instead of just "you people"...
the answer given to the managers was ... "the door is over there... as soon as you leave, we can replace you with 4 of you people for every one of you".
the next months following, those who stayed were sent to India to train the new people there.
when they came back, the HO was closed as the outsource became the new global HO.
same scenario for microstock
-
We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.
NOTHING.
They're not expecting anything. It's just happening. The supply is getting bigger and bigger, why would they change anything?
Exactly. Contributors continue to, at best, get no improvement in contractual benefits while mostly seeing benefits taken away and royalties drop. But hoards of new contributors are joining and existing contributors are still submitting record numbers of images. To SS, there is no problem and no reason to change anything with contributors.
As long as so many people are happy working an immense number of hours to create and submit thousands of images to make $10 a month nothing will change. I wonder what would happen if all of the unprofitable contributors suddenly stopped submitting. Just curious if it's the ton of contributors or the image factories that are responsible for the flood of images.
Recently Shutterstock came out with its Infographic: Shutterstock's 2015 Contributor Earnings Report http://tinyurl.com/lxb9hxs (http://tinyurl.com/lxb9hxs) where it listed the ranking of sales in each region. I think they left the number 1, 2, and 4 spots out for good reason.
They fully know who initiated a strong response opposing DPC at fotolia. All it would take is the Russian community pulling out for a short time and it would strongly affect their business.
-
Haaa. I got -2 for stating facts. Funny stuff.
Sorry people. No SS problems means no raises or other improvements. If there ever reaches a point where contributors start leaving in hoards and pulling images, new contributors stop joining, and image quality and quantity starts suffering, then you may see a carrot or two. Until then, your raise is to get back on the hamster wheel and produce enough sellable images to outpace collection growth.
Bring on the negatives.
-
As long as so many people are happy working an immense number of hours to create and submit thousands of images to make $10 a month nothing will change. I wonder what would happen if all of the unprofitable contributors suddenly stopped submitting. Just curious if it's the ton of contributors or the image factories that are responsible for the flood of images.
i can answer that for you PW...
many years ago in the days when telemarketing started, a bunch of managers told the owners the same thing about treating the call center agents more decently instead of just "you people"...
the answer given to the managers was ... "the door is over there... as soon as you leave, we can replace you with 4 of you people for every one of you".
the next months following, those who stayed were sent to India to train the new people there.
when they came back, the HO was closed as the outsource became the new global HO.
same scenario for microstock
Well, I know what you're getting at and this is definitely similar but there's a key difference. In telemarketing you have greater changes of the opportunity to earn average market wages for that region which is why there's always someone to replace the current people. You could earn a living doing it. What percentage of stock contributors today are even earning what would be considered minimum wage? I'd bet a very small percentage are earning a living, and another small percentage are even earning comparable minimum wage.
What if that telemarketing company advertised they were paying 5% of market wage or enough to buy a basic dinner or two a month for working 20-40 hours a week? Nobody in their right mind would want the job. But that's effectively what's happening in microstock. There are a bazillion hobbyists that are just happy someone not only likes their work but are even willing to pay something, anything, even a few dollars for it. I know the feeling. I was one of those people who worked a ton of hours to get that first couple dollar sale. And I was ecstatic. And these stock sites know that and take advantage of it to its fullest.
There was an article I'll need to dig up where the new economy is turning into a bunch of internet services contractors. People are no longer employees. There's no insurance. No physical products or inventory. No benefits. No office. The financial investment and risk is shifting from companies to individuals while the companies are increasingly making a fortune. These are the Ubers, Lyfts, Spotifys, annnndddd newest generation of stock sites.
I hope this all turns around one day and starts heading back in the right direction. I keep sticking around waiting for the turnaround. The bottom. But this business is increasingly looking like a bottomless pit that an endless line of people are willing to keep jumping into.
-
Thank you digital cameras.....LOL
-
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!
Nope, Getty was the downfall of the stock industry. By paying such low percentages to contributors they left the door open to competitors to sell licenses for much less while still compensating contributors, allowing them to outweigh their lower prices with much higher volume. So I guess more generally excessive greed is to blame.
-
No one is to blame it is an inevitable consequence of the environment we live in if Shutterstock or Istock hadn't done it someone else would.
-
Solution: Everyone takes their work to sites that treat contributors fairly or as fair as possible, Pond5 50% and you get to set your own price and Videoblocks, while Videoblocks locks you in at $49 you get 100% commission, I am on SS and that was/is in the hops of them being a powerhouse that there would be a good sales volume despite lower commissions but the others? who pay peanuts? sorry, not worth my time and it's also about respect, we pay all our own business expenses, gear, gas, vehicle repairs, and equipment lifecycle replacement plus our time? and to peanuts?
I can only speak about video but I only consider Pond 5 and Videoblocks to be worthy players at least for me and for the type of content I have.
-
No one is to blame it is an inevitable consequence of the environment we live in if Shutterstock or Istock hadn't done it someone else would.
That's the old 'unlocked car' argument: that poor kid who stole your car isn't really to blame. Well, of course he is.
In my book, SS and IS have been the driving forces in the devaluation of stock imagery, and the race to the bottom on price.
-
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!
Nope, Getty was the downfall of the stock industry. By paying such low percentages to contributors they left the door open to competitors to sell licenses for much less while still compensating contributors, allowing them to outweigh their lower prices with much higher volume. So I guess more generally excessive greed is to blame.
At least istock tried very hard to increase prices (wich, btw, was heavily criticised here by some people). The only increase in prices that I remember from SS is when they decided to give 25 instead of 30 images per day with the subscripcion.
-
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 think Pauws99 is closer to the correct analysis than you are but still far too optimistic. The only reason we are getting pitiful payments and buyers are buying at bargain-basement prices is because no company has yet figured out how to pay us nothing!
But that will come. It’s easy to poo-poo hobbyists but I am sure they will provide the quality most publishers require from microstock. This week, admittedly, is not the greatest but I am usually amazed by the photographs of Scotland at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34744629 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-34744629) where contributors receive no fee, only the ‘privilege’ of saying ‘my photo was on the BBC’.
Chris Anderson’s books, The Long Tail and Free have not been as hyped in recent years but the central argument still holds true: what people expect from the internet is free content.
And partly, in our case, this is to do, with the ubiquity of images. I remember as a kid looking forward to the Sunday Times and Observer magazines on a Sunday which might have a series by Eve Arnold in what (at the time!!) seemed like high definition after the rare and blurred printed images in the black and white press during the week. A few weeks ago I was speaking to a journalist who spoke about images now as ‘punctuation’ within a story so nothing, please, too striking which detracts from the words.
-
Shutterstock raised their subscription prices - started at $89.99 a month in 2004 and went up. They added per image sales, which were higher priced than subscriptions - about $10 each in a 5-pack. All the SOD sales are at higher prices than the subscriptions or on demand.
iStock did fine raising prices at first - and there wasn't a problem with that at the beginning. Vetta was a bit of a shock to the system, but it was tightly edited and it was clear why you were paying more.
When Getty started dumping a bunch of schlock into Agency and jacked those prices sky high, you ended up with images that SS would have rejected at insane prices on iStock and the buyer was left with no clear notion as to why images were at the prices they were. You don't pay hundreds of dollars to license a fruit slice.
iStock was competing just fine with Shutterstock for a good long time - each had its model and pricing structure and each found a place in the market.
I get that many exclusives don't like Shutterstock, but blaming Getty's demolition of the iStock business on anyone but Getty is just not supported by any of the data.
-
lol...I totally agree, but Shutterstock is totally evil now.
-
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!
Nope, Getty was the downfall of the stock industry. By paying such low percentages to contributors they left the door open to competitors to sell licenses for much less while still compensating contributors, allowing them to outweigh their lower prices with much higher volume. So I guess more generally excessive greed is to blame.
No really it is Shutterstock. Shutterstock is not the friend of the contributor in any way what so ever!
-
Shutterstock paying out more money than any other agency.........the swines! Get real folks this is a capitalist marketplace.
-
I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive. I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs. As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy. I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.
-
How can you know who are your customers on microstocks (except the [few] one you are in direct contact with)?
It's easy - I see their publications here and around ;)
I find that Google image search works quite well... paste in the URL of the preview of your image on SS and it finds the real thing wherever it is on the web. Of course it doesn't pick up use of your images in hard copy, but it's useful for seeing where it has been used online.
-
Shutterstock paying out more money than any other agency.........the swines! Get real folks this is a capitalist marketplace.
+1 and if I only sold on the 50/50 sites I'd be out of business. It's a nice thought but they don't make same money. I stay on SS. Show Me The Money someplace else and I'll leave SS. Same why I stay on IS with the mean arrogant people like Lobo who are the face of how IS thinks of us as their slaves to talk down and insult.
SS at least speaks with some respect.
-
SS at least speaks with some respect.
"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.
-
shutterstock stopped respecting their contributing members the day they stopped all communication and left us in the dark about pretty much everything
-
sharpshot, good sale, probably gross partner sale right, so not really 600 but more 180, still good, i just never understood the niche of posting alamy sales in gross figures
-
sharpshot, good sale, probably gross partner sale right, so not really 600 but more 180, still good, i just never understood the niche of posting alamy sales in gross figures
No, they sold it for almost $1,200 and I got 50% of that.
-
SS at least speaks with some respect.
"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.
lmao they respect us so much they give a super large preview so you can actually download to print a 5by7 print for free;
you sound like that comedian who says "what respect???"
only it's the reverse, "... i am a well-respected ss contributor... they literally give my work away!!..hip hip hooray!!!" 8)
-
SS at least speaks with some respect.
"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.
Not totally wrong (other than the permanently repeated fact that shutterstock is not all subs and the real RPD is higher).
But "It's unsustainable if we only keep 80% of the sales price of your work, we need to cut the commissions" ain't much better.
-
SS at least speaks with some respect.
"Your image is worth as little as 25c - 38c."
I see no respect for artists, or their work, there.
Not totally wrong (other than the permanently repeated fact that shutterstock is not all subs and the real RPD is higher).
Not at all the point I was making.
I was talking about the most common price/compensation at SS ("as little as"), which is derisory.
But "It's unsustainable if we only keep 80% of the sales price of your work, we need to cut the commissions" ain't much better.
Who said it was?
This is the SS forum, and the thread is about the overdue raise at SS.
The point is that the minimum price of subs at SS should have been raised years ago.
The fact that it hasn't been shouts loud and clear about the amount of respect SS has for its contributors.
-
I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive. I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs. As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy. I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.
Sharpshoot, why? What may be working for you is not necessarily working for the masses. The industry HAS gone down the toilet, with Shutterstock being the exception for the most part. I will admit I am happy about the occasional big sale but without those (and I believe many contributors, though I don't want to speak for everyone) I am way down on subs, general OD's and almost never anymore $28 EL's. So I would say SS is, to a degree, contributing to the race to the bottom. They also lowered 4K from $399 to $299. They were the first to do it.
But, I am glad you are seeing some good sales. And it is nice to know that in some capacities SS is still fighting for some juicy sales.
-
I get paid a lot more for some of the "Single & Other" sales with SS than I have ever received from istock as a non-exclusive. I get sick of all the race to the bottom posts here, SS pay much more per download now than when I started or when I reached the top tier for subs. As a non-exclusive, I can also sell on higher paying sites like alamy. I got almost $600 for one sale there this year.
Sharpshoot, why? What may be working for you is not necessarily working for the masses. The industry HAS gone down the toilet, with Shutterstock being the exception for the most part. I will admit I am happy about the occasional big sale but without those (and I believe many contributors, though I don't want to speak for everyone) I am way down on subs, general OD's and almost never anymore $28 EL's. So I would say SS is, to a degree, contributing to the race to the bottom. They also lowered 4K from $399 to $299. They were the first to do it.
But, I am glad you are seeing some good sales. And it is nice to know that in some capacities SS is still fighting for some juicy sales.
well said. someone else here said the same thing a while back on another thread...
stockastic i think... that our single sales are the only thing that rescue us from a really
bad performance compared to other years.
i think that is so true. also, the single sales of large 80 to 102 are less than when it started
and even if you take the 28 bucks singles, i used to get it more often than the past year(s).
but thanks to one client who paid 80+ to 100+ my month have been rescued this way.
so yes, mantis you are +100% correct