pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I think we need a WELL DESERVED RAISE this year...  (Read 29759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: March 04, 2015, 12:56 »
-3
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 >:(


« Reply #101 on: March 04, 2015, 13:15 »
0
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.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #102 on: March 04, 2015, 14:09 »
0
The options would have to be REALLY discounted, because the stock is pretty volatile lately.

« Reply #103 on: March 04, 2015, 14:15 »
+19
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. 

« Reply #104 on: March 04, 2015, 14:29 »
+4
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

« Reply #105 on: March 04, 2015, 14:52 »
+4
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...

ultimagina

« Reply #106 on: March 04, 2015, 15:04 »
+4
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #107 on: March 04, 2015, 17:28 »
0
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #108 on: March 04, 2015, 17:30 »
+1
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.

« Reply #109 on: March 04, 2015, 18:15 »
0
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

« Reply #110 on: March 04, 2015, 18:54 »
+4
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.

« Reply #111 on: March 04, 2015, 19:13 »
+2
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. :'(

Rinderart

« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2015, 00:56 »
+11
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
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 00:58 by Rinderart »

« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2015, 01:22 »
+1
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2015, 02:19 »
0
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?

Snow

« Reply #115 on: March 05, 2015, 06:55 »
+5
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!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #116 on: March 05, 2015, 07:02 »
+3
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.


« Reply #117 on: March 05, 2015, 09:37 »
+4
...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.

« Reply #118 on: March 05, 2015, 09:54 »
+4
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.

« Reply #119 on: March 05, 2015, 10:01 »
+1

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

Snow

« Reply #120 on: March 05, 2015, 10:57 »
+1
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.

Quote
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.

Rinderart

« Reply #121 on: March 06, 2015, 20:48 »
+9
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.

Quote
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.

« Reply #122 on: March 09, 2015, 12:56 »
+4
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.

Quote
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!

« Reply #123 on: March 09, 2015, 13:38 »
+16
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.

Quote
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

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.

Rinderart

« Reply #124 on: March 09, 2015, 20:14 »
+11


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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
13016 Views
Last post July 11, 2010, 07:27
by microstockphoto.co.uk
5 Replies
5031 Views
Last post March 04, 2008, 17:26
by andresr
2 Replies
3158 Views
Last post April 01, 2008, 13:40
by lisafx
3 Replies
14307 Views
Last post August 18, 2009, 22:00
by Jonathan Ross
2 Replies
5160 Views
Last post July 17, 2011, 06:08
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors