Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40306 times)

rubyroo · « **Reply #125 on:** October 17, 2012, 12:42 »

I prefer to read my sig.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #126 on:** October 17, 2012, 13:07 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html

Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #127 on:** October 17, 2012, 13:09 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on October 17, 2012, 13:07

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html

Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?

Hi mate! hows it going? yep, I think thats his port or some of it. I seem to remember some of the shots.

RT · « **Reply #128 on:** October 17, 2012, 13:19 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on October 17, 2012, 13:07

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html

Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?

It would explain why that portfolio contains so many images with copyright infringements in it, I mean there's a couple reading 'Timeout' magazine with other photos on the page visible, a woman reading a newspaper with adverts on it and a guy holding a 'webber' surfboard wearing a 'Rip Curl' rash vest, and I only looked on the first two pages, all being sold as RF!

gostwyck · « **Reply #129 on:** October 17, 2012, 13:27 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on October 17, 2012, 13:07

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html

Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?

Yep. JEO is Jon's intials (Jonathan E Oringer).

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #130 on:** October 17, 2012, 13:36 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 17, 2012, 10:30

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 16, 2012, 09:50

Makes no sense why independents like this guy. He figured out a way to make 400 million dollars while giving contributors the lowest possible amount of money for each sale. As if micro wasn't paying too little already. If getty is evil what is this guy. I would be embarrassed by getting so much from giving out so little while bragging about this type of subscription business model. You should at least be mad you didn't think of it first. After all giving away others people work can't be that hard.

As an ex-exclusive from iStock who is having decreasing monthly income from my portfolio there and an increasing income from my (smaller) portfolio at SS, not to mention my 9 cent sale this morning for an XS on iStock, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

And I don't like Jon - I don't know him, but I do respect people who start businesses that make it - but I echo other people's comments that he's largely been a straight shooter in his dealings with contributors. Other agencies don't have that track record of solid earnings and forthright dealings with their suppliers, unfortunately.

Yes, He did outsmart contributors. He made $400 for diluting the value of their photos with a subscription model. While you were bouncing between exclusive vs indy trying to get a fair deal. Watch his video on here. It's was his big ideal.. Okay you want to sell my work for low, low, low, prices.... sign me up!!! I am impressed he followed through with this idea because I am sure anyone else who thought of this said to themselves ... nah they wouldn't fall for this.

Then he praised for not lowering commissions from these incredibly low commissions. Then fan boys on here are giddy over a form letter. You can't make it up. Look at his expression on the video. He looks like the cat who ate the canary when he talks about the subscription idea. SS was supposed to save us from getty. Now they are beholden to maximizing shareholders profits. How will this be done?

He says in the video that demand is exploding for images. Have you seen this??? Everyone either reporting fewer sales or fewer dollars. No Growth as far as I see listed anywhere in the stats are being reported. If yuri is down, everyone is down. I guess the CEO of SS did not read Yuri's post stating his sales are down for the first time ever.

djpadavona · « **Reply #131 on:** October 17, 2012, 14:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 16, 2012, 10:43

Exactly. Oringer's never lied to us, never reduced commissions and nor has he claimed that his business was "unsustainable" if he didn't do so.

Didn't Shutterstock claim for years that they were paying an estimated 30-35% out on commissions? Now that the books are open that doesn't seem to be the case.

rubyroo · « **Reply #132 on:** October 17, 2012, 14:14 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 17, 2012, 13:36

No Growth as far as I see listed anywhere in the stats are being reported. If yuri is down, everyone is down.

What?

What on earth does Yuri's performance have to do with anyone else's?

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #133 on:** October 17, 2012, 14:22 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 17, 2012, 14:14

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 17, 2012, 13:36
No Growth as far as I see listed anywhere in the stats are being reported. If yuri is down, everyone is down.

What?

What on earth does Yuri's performance have to do with anyone else's?

Agreeing! nothing at all. He must have slipped on the keyboard.

rubyroo · « **Reply #134 on:** October 17, 2012, 14:25 »

stockastic · « **Reply #135 on:** October 17, 2012, 14:28 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 17, 2012, 13:36

...praised for not lowering commissions from these incredibly low commissions.

Not yet anyway.

"Plese keep your seat belts fastened and remain seated until the ride has come to a complete stop." - Disneyland

ShadySue · « **Reply #136 on:** October 17, 2012, 14:56 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 17, 2012, 13:36

No Growth as far as I see listed anywhere in the stats are being reported. If yuri is down, everyone is down. I guess the CEO of SS did not read Yuri's post stating his sales are down for the first time ever.

Anecdotally, here, most people reporting are reporting growth at SS.
I missed Yuri's post about SS, but he has posted a couple of hours ago about falling sales in Fotolia, and I'm sure he mentioned falling sales on iStock not very long ago.
Of course, he will be very glad of that, if his buyers are buying dirctly from his site.

rubyroo · « **Reply #137 on:** October 17, 2012, 15:11 »

Very true Sue. I'm sure Yuri will be incredibly happy if that's the case.

I've seen tremendous growth this year through the agencies (especially SS). Couldn't be more delighted.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #138 on:** October 17, 2012, 15:18 »

There may be growth in image demand and for agencies but contributors are likely to see falling growth from here on out. SS currently has almost 22 million images online and there were 90,573 new images added this week. Times 52 weeks that works out to more than 4.7 million images per year. At that rate SS will have more 31 million images in two years and more than 41 million - almost double the current database - in 4. Therefore, each contributor's share is likely to decrease by half within 4 years even if they keep uploading unless there is a huge increase in demand. SS being everyone's favorite agency now will lead to greatly reduced payouts in the future as our images become more and more diluted. For agencies this is great and should last for many years. The unsustainable part is for contributors to maintain or grow their income - probably impossible given the huge numbers of submissions. The math is not in our favor.

I've seen growth this year as well - probably because with my small portfolio I can still make a huge percentage increase - but I expect it to become increasingly difficult every year.

Poncke · « **Reply #139 on:** October 17, 2012, 15:36 »

People 7 years on the site, with massive portfolios still reporting BMEs

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #140 on:** October 17, 2012, 17:12 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 17, 2012, 15:36

People 7 years on the site, with massive portfolios still reporting BMEs

I'm sure there are some, but I would bet that they have increased their portfolios a lot recently. As SS takes buyers from other sites earnings on SS also will go up but over all sites may go down. In the long run it is inevitable if submissions keep up at the current pace. Those who produce exceptionally unique and marketable images might be able to maintain but for the rest of us it is very unlikely that our production can match the growth of the database so our share will continually decrease. I don't mean to be negative but that is the reality. Jon went public at the right time and I'm sure that's why Yuri started his own site - the big money will be in having an agency, not providing content. Of course as returns go down contributors will drop out so it might reach some sort of equilibrium but my guess is that we aren't there yet.

Actually I think this is already evident at the poll on the right where SS is at 93% compared to whenever the benchmark was for 100% - I assume it will go over 100% if everyone's collective earnings increase. If I'm correct then it probably will be at 80% in another year or two. This is one of those times where I hope I'm wrong.

gostwyck · « **Reply #141 on:** October 17, 2012, 18:27 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on October 17, 2012, 17:12

Actually I think this is already evident at the poll on the right where SS is at 93% compared to whenever the benchmark was for 100% - I assume it will go over 100% if everyone's collective earnings increase. If I'm correct then it probably will be at 80% in another year or two. This is one of those times where I hope I'm wrong.

No. You don't understand how Leaf has reconstructed the poll to more accurately reflect relative earnings between agencies. Read up on the recent threads about it.

SS is doing just fine. I'm on target for a truly massive BME there this month and no, I haven't done much uploading lately or indeed for a couple of years. IMHO buyers are simply exiting places like IS (where my sales this month are in the toilet) in favour of SS.

Your maths isn't wrong regarding the amount of new uploads but, in my experience, the actual effect on existing portfolios isn't necessarily directly proportional. There is a huge amount of utter rubbish and/or similars being accepted which are inevitably heading for oblivion in the sort order. Try a few searches on 'Newest' to see what's coming through.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #142 on:** October 17, 2012, 19:36 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 17, 2012, 18:27

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on October 17, 2012, 17:12
Actually I think this is already evident at the poll on the right where SS is at 93% compared to whenever the benchmark was for 100% - I assume it will go over 100% if everyone's collective earnings increase. If I'm correct then it probably will be at 80% in another year or two. This is one of those times where I hope I'm wrong.

No. You don't understand how Leaf has reconstructed the poll to more accurately reflect relative earnings between agencies. Read up on the recent threads about it.

SS is doing just fine. I'm on target for a truly massive BME there this month and no, I haven't done much uploading lately or indeed for a couple of years. IMHO buyers are simply exiting places like IS (where my sales this month are in the toilet) in favour of SS.

Your maths isn't wrong regarding the amount of new uploads but, in my experience, the actual effect on existing portfolios isn't necessarily directly proportional. There is a huge amount of utter rubbish and/or similars being accepted which are inevitably heading for oblivion in the sort order. Try a few searches on 'Newest' to see what's coming through.

That's always possible but I don't think so. According to this thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/) he is using a benchmark of $500 for SS which will stay the same so that the percent for SS will vary over time. Therefore, if earnings drop it will decrease and could go to 80% or lower. Where I may have erred was in assuming it started at 100. If it was 93% or so when he switched over then it hasn't changed, and I don't remember where it was when he made the switch. Thanks for pointing that out.

As far as much new material being junk with no traction, that could help to explain why earnings at SS seem to be growing over the drops at other sites. I certainly hope you're right. I don't think it will change the final outcome but it would flatten the trajectory of any drop. Fingers crossed.

leaf · « **Reply #143 on:** October 18, 2012, 01:48 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on October 17, 2012, 19:36

Quote from: gostwyck on October 17, 2012, 18:27
Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on October 17, 2012, 17:12
Actually I think this is already evident at the poll on the right where SS is at 93% compared to whenever the benchmark was for 100% - I assume it will go over 100% if everyone's collective earnings increase. If I'm correct then it probably will be at 80% in another year or two. This is one of those times where I hope I'm wrong.

No. You don't understand how Leaf has reconstructed the poll to more accurately reflect relative earnings between agencies. Read up on the recent threads about it.

SS is doing just fine. I'm on target for a truly massive BME there this month and no, I haven't done much uploading lately or indeed for a couple of years. IMHO buyers are simply exiting places like IS (where my sales this month are in the toilet) in favour of SS.

Your maths isn't wrong regarding the amount of new uploads but, in my experience, the actual effect on existing portfolios isn't necessarily directly proportional. There is a huge amount of utter rubbish and/or similars being accepted which are inevitably heading for oblivion in the sort order. Try a few searches on 'Newest' to see what's coming through.

That's always possible but I don't think so. According to this thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/) he is using a benchmark of $500 for SS which will stay the same so that the percent for SS will vary over time. Therefore, if earnings drop it will decrease and could go to 80% or lower. Where I may have erred was in assuming it started at 100. If it was 93% or so when he switched over then it hasn't changed, and I don't remember where it was when he made the switch. Thanks for pointing that out.

As far as much new material being junk with no traction, that could help to explain why earnings at SS seem to be growing over the drops at other sites. I certainly hope you're right. I don't think it will change the final outcome but it would flatten the trajectory of any drop. Fingers crossed.

Yeah, all the sites are rated out of 500. You can see the history on the graphs page as well.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=PollResults
Both iStock and Shutterstock did very well last month, Shutterstock reaching an avg of over 500!

rubyroo · « **Reply #144 on:** October 18, 2012, 02:50 »

Quote from: leaf on October 18, 2012, 01:48

Both iStock and Shutterstock did very well last month, Shutterstock reaching an avg of over 500!

Oh! They've broken through the high mark! That's fabulous news!

I hesitate to ask, Tyler... because I know you're a busy bee, but is it not possible to represent the actual numbers and have the arrows back? It seems from this thread that the current results are confusing people and creating unnecessary negativity.

sharpshot · « **Reply #145 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:18 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 11:21

Quote from: gostwyck on October 17, 2012, 11:13
I really don't understand your obsession with 'RPD'. At FT this month my RPD is $1.21 and at SS it is 74c. However my SS income is more than 4x higher than at FT. At DT my RPD is $2.10 but my earnings there are less than one fifth than my earnings at SS. RPD is not important, earnings are. RPD doesn't pay the bills, earnings do.

Because you've answered it within your own statement, both FT and DT pay you more and yet you still routinely comment about how great it is that more customers are going to SS. If more customers went to a site with a higher RPD (like FT, DT as you pointed out) then your overall earnings would increase, as things stand the more customers SS take from other sites can only lead to one thing, less earnings, how are you going to pay the bills then?

Do you ignore the RPD for shutterstock pay per download, SOD's and EL's? They're not a subs only site and my non-subs RPD there is probably better than most other microstock sites. RPD is so meaningless to me, I can't be bothered working it out but I think if I did, I would want to compare subs with subs and PPD with PPD. Surely if you do that, SS is going to have a good subs RPD and a good PPD RPD?

And there's the fact that istck, FT and DT have all cut their PPD commissions. So their RPD could be much worse in years to come, as they haven't said that they have stopped cutting commissions. I really wouldn't want more buyers going to those sites, giving them more power over us and making it easier for them to cut commissions. I know some people think if istock had dominated the market, they wouldn't of needed to cut commissions but I think that's nonsense.

rubyroo · « **Reply #146 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:40 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 18, 2012, 03:18

Do you ignore the RPD for shutterstock pay per download, SOD's and EL's? They're not a subs only site and my non-subs RPD there is probably better than most other microstock sites.

It's very strange to me that all the SS bashers seem to have a blind spot when it comes to OD's, SOD's and EL's. As should be clear, in recent months Jon has increased the range of PPDs and there are more non-sub sales than ever.

RT · « **Reply #147 on:** October 18, 2012, 04:15 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 18, 2012, 03:18

Do you ignore the RPD for shutterstock pay per download, SOD's and EL's? They're not a subs only site and my non-subs RPD there is probably better than most other microstock sites. RPD is so meaningless to me, I can't be bothered working it out but I think if I did, I would want to compare subs with subs and PPD with PPD. Surely if you do that, SS is going to have a good subs RPD and a good PPD RPD?

And there's the fact that istck, FT and DT have all cut their PPD commissions. So their RPD could be much worse in years to come, as they haven't said that they have stopped cutting commissions. I really wouldn't want more buyers going to those sites, giving them more power over us and making it easier for them to cut commissions. I know some people think if istock had dominated the market, they wouldn't of needed to cut commissions but I think that's nonsense.

No 'average RPD' takes into account all sales whether it be Subs,SOD,EL,PPD or whatever fancy term a site uses for a sale. You should try, it's a two second job, just take your last months sales on SS, divide the cash amount by the number of downloads and you'll get your average RPD.
It will fluctuate slightly as obviously some months you'll have more EL's etc than others but that's the whole point of it, to gauge an Average. Year on year it gives you a good indication of which sites pay you more commission than others, trust me give it a go for the big 4 and then you'll see why I keep telling you that percentages mean nothing, and maybe you'll finally understand why I don't encourage buyers to go to SS. You will see why Jon is now a multi millionaire!

Doing it the way you describe is pointless, if you try and work out your average RPD for subs only on SS I'll bet you end up with 38c

Mine is pretty similar to Gostwyck's with the highest paying being DT then iS, FT and finally SS a long way back. I'll be surprised if yours is any different.

RT · « **Reply #148 on:** October 18, 2012, 04:18 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 18, 2012, 03:40

It's very strange to me that all the SS bashers seem to have a blind spot when it comes to OD's, SOD's and EL's. As should be clear, in recent months Jon has increased the range of PPDs and there are more non-sub sales than ever.

No, you just don't understand what RPD is, see my post to Sharpshot above.

rubyroo · « **Reply #149 on:** October 18, 2012, 04:40 »

Quote from: RT on October 18, 2012, 04:18

Quote from: rubyroo on October 18, 2012, 03:40
It's very strange to me that all the SS bashers seem to have a blind spot when it comes to OD's, SOD's and EL's. As should be clear, in recent months Jon has increased the range of PPDs and there are more non-sub sales than ever.

No, you just don't understand what RPD is, see my post to Sharpshot above.

You do make an awful lot of assumptions regarding what people know and think. I wasn't actually referring to RPD at all, nor was I referring to you in my post. Over time there have been a few posters here (IS exclusives, usually) who speak as if SS as purely a sub site and nothing else. I shouldn't have said 'all SS bashers' in my post. That was careless of me.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40306 times)

rubyroo

Yuri_Arcurs

ClaridgeJ

RT

gostwyck

pro@stockphotos

djpadavona

rubyroo

ClaridgeJ

rubyroo

stockastic

ShadySue

rubyroo

sgoodwin4813

Poncke

sgoodwin4813

gostwyck

sgoodwin4813

leaf

rubyroo

sharpshot

rubyroo

RT

RT

rubyroo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors