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

Quote

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Quote from: dirkr on February 25, 2015, 04:16

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?

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).

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.

Quote from: Tror on February 25, 2015, 07:37

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.

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)

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 25, 2015, 10:25

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.