Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40286 times)

OM · « **Reply #50 on:** October 12, 2012, 18:15 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2012, 17:30

I don't know about anyone else, and it could just be luck, but I have had a couple of good days since the announcement...even got an EL today. Keep it coming, it will almost be like a raise.

My sales were better before the IPO so I suppose it's like they say in the world of the stock market, "Buy the mystery and sell the history."

cathyslife · « **Reply #51 on:** October 12, 2012, 19:07 »

Quote from: OM on October 12, 2012, 18:15

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2012, 17:30
I don't know about anyone else, and it could just be luck, but I have had a couple of good days since the announcement...even got an EL today. Keep it coming, it will almost be like a raise.

My sales were better before the IPO so I suppose it's like they say in the world of the stock market, "Buy the mystery and sell the history."

Or the old ebb and flow.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #52 on:** October 13, 2012, 06:34 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 11, 2012, 15:46

I thought it was a nice note. Seemed to suggest Jon will be staying on at the helm, which is good news. Hopefully they continue to grow the business intelligently, as they've been doing, without any radical changes for the worse.

Jon wont stay for long. His passion lies with something completely differant then micro and I wish him best of luck in that field. Yes dls have never been better then now, thats for sure.

Smithore · « **Reply #53 on:** October 13, 2012, 06:51 »

Yes, a 5c or more rise by download could be a real gesture, a real proof.

OM · « **Reply #54 on:** October 13, 2012, 08:35 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2012, 19:07

Quote from: OM on October 12, 2012, 18:15
Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2012, 17:30
I don't know about anyone else, and it could just be luck, but I have had a couple of good days since the announcement...even got an EL today. Keep it coming, it will almost be like a raise.

My sales were better before the IPO so I suppose it's like they say in the world of the stock market, "Buy the mystery and sell the history."

Or the old ebb and flow.

Definitely that.

stockastic · « **Reply #55 on:** October 13, 2012, 17:00 »

Nothing but ebb for me, since the IPO.

sharpshot · « **Reply #56 on:** October 13, 2012, 17:17 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 13, 2012, 06:34

Quote from: lisafx on October 11, 2012, 15:46
I thought it was a nice note. Seemed to suggest Jon will be staying on at the helm, which is good news. Hopefully they continue to grow the business intelligently, as they've been doing, without any radical changes for the worse.

Jon wont stay for long. His passion lies with something completely differant then micro and I wish him best of luck in that field. Yes dls have never been better then now, thats for sure.

So why didn't he just sell the site? Are you sure about this or is it just speculation? I bet there's some shareholders that would like to know information like that and the other site owners.

djpadavona · « **Reply #57 on:** October 15, 2012, 17:54 »

Has anyone worked out a rough commission percentage from the 2012 financials? That number speaks a lot louder to me than does a letter of thanks.

They are obviously very profitable. Very low capital expenditure requirements and a light business model. Cash and Cash Eq more than doubled between 12/2010 and 12/2011, while Total Assets nearly doubled. They certainly don't look to be in an "unsustainable business" as iStock claimed when they harpooned our commissions 2 years ago.

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 16, 2012, 01:32 »

My email must still be "in the post"

Did everyone get one or was it just the bigger contributers/sellers? Nice thought though -for those that did get one! Regards, David.

dirkr · « **Reply #59 on:** October 16, 2012, 02:25 »

Quote from: Newsfocus1 on October 16, 2012, 01:32

My email must still be "in the post" Did everyone get one or was it just the bigger contributers/sellers? Nice thought though -for those that did get one! Regards, David.

I got one, so it's not only the bigger sellers. Mine came a day later than the first ones announced here in this thread, so it looks like they sent out the e-mails in several packages. Maybe yours is still to be sent...

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #60 on:** October 16, 2012, 09:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 11, 2012, 17:17

Quote from: Ploink on October 11, 2012, 12:50
...saying: Thank you!

He goes on to say that they will "continue to work at making Shutterstock a rewarding experience for contributors..." - considering how other places are treating their photographers lately (or not so lately), I hope he keeps his word

"Thanks for making me a couple hundred million dollars. I'm going to take five minutes and write an email that my computer will send to all of you, with no further effort on my part."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo

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.

Ploink · « **Reply #61 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:19 »

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.

I don't "like" the guy, we don't have a personal relationship as I don't know him. What we do have is a - successful - business relationship. He and his company make me two to three times more money than the nearest competitor. Each and every month, with very little ebb and flow, and without having to look over my shoulder constantly to see if somebody tries to shaft me

Poncke · « **Reply #62 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:30 »

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

Quote from: sjlocke on October 11, 2012, 17:17
Quote from: Ploink on October 11, 2012, 12:50
...saying: Thank you!

He goes on to say that they will "continue to work at making Shutterstock a rewarding experience for contributors..." - considering how other places are treating their photographers lately (or not so lately), I hope he keeps his word

"Thanks for making me a couple hundred million dollars. I'm going to take five minutes and write an email that my computer will send to all of you, with no further effort on my part."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo

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.

The prices might be low, but the commission is not lowest possible.

249 dollar for 750 photos, 33 cent to buy it, I get 33 cent commission.

gostwyck · « **Reply #63 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:43 »

Quote from: Ploink on October 16, 2012, 10:19

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.

I don't "like" the guy, we don't have a personal relationship as I don't know him. What we do have is a - successful - business relationship. He and his company make me two to three times more money than the nearest competitor. Each and every month, with very little ebb and flow, and without having to look over my should constantly to see if somebody tries to shaft me

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. He's never insulted us by saying that "we don't go there for money" either. He's kept the site working perfectly whilst adding additional features for both customers and contributors alike and, most importantly of all, he's kept the customers coming and our incomes rising steadily.

Any other questions pro@stockphotos?

rubyroo · « **Reply #64 on:** October 16, 2012, 10:56 »

The lowest I've ever earned on SS was 0.28c, back when I started. That was a while ago now.

The lowest I can earn today on iStock is 0.7c.

heywoody · « **Reply #65 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:19 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 16, 2012, 10:56

The lowest I've ever earned on SS was 0.28c, back when I started. That was a while ago now.

The lowest I can earn today on iStock is 0.7c.

Yeah, the "wow factor" on IS is a 7c sale - on SS it's a $120 - $300 SOD

Couple of observations:

We don't sell our work, just licence it so hundreds @ a few cents makes a better deal than a few at a couple of dollars
Pricing and commissions are the simplest and most transparant
I find reviewing fair and consistent (appreciate not everyone does)
Overall it is what it is with no nasty surprises

cthoman · « **Reply #66 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:25 »

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.

I tend to agree. SS subscription model has created an expectation of cheap images that is hard to put back into the bottle. Especially since it has such passionate supporters.

gostwyck · « **Reply #67 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:52 »

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

Quote from: sjlocke on October 11, 2012, 17:17
Quote from: Ploink on October 11, 2012, 12:50
...saying: Thank you!

He goes on to say that they will "continue to work at making Shutterstock a rewarding experience for contributors..." - considering how other places are treating their photographers lately (or not so lately), I hope he keeps his word

"Thanks for making me a couple hundred million dollars. I'm going to take five minutes and write an email that my computer will send to all of you, with no further effort on my part."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo

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.

I have a question for you too. Compare and contrast the views of SS contributors expressed on MSG with those of iStockphoto contributors, mostly exclusive, expressed in this thread;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=348113&page=1

Now explain to me why people choose to remain loyal iStock exclusive poodles? That really is a mystery.

rubyroo · « **Reply #68 on:** October 16, 2012, 13:58 »

Quote from: heywoody on October 16, 2012, 11:19

Yeah, the "wow factor" on IS is a 7c sale - on SS it's a $120 - $300 SOD

You're so right! Two very different kinds of "wow"...

Agree with the rest of your post also.

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #69 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:16 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 16, 2012, 10:56

The lowest I've ever earned on SS was 0.28c, back when I started. That was a while ago now.

The lowest I can earn today on iStock is 0.7c.

You didn't earn .07$ on Istock. That was on one of their cheap "subscription" sites like SS with very low royalties, according to yuri, where I don't allow my work to be sold. I am not subjected to low royalties like these.

rubyroo · « **Reply #70 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:17 »

Yes I did. It's the lowest amount I've ever been paid anywhere, and it was at.... (read my lips)... ISTOCK.

sharpshot · « **Reply #71 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:30 »

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

Quote from: sjlocke on October 11, 2012, 17:17
Quote from: Ploink on October 11, 2012, 12:50
...saying: Thank you!

He goes on to say that they will "continue to work at making Shutterstock a rewarding experience for contributors..." - considering how other places are treating their photographers lately (or not so lately), I hope he keeps his word

"Thanks for making me a couple hundred million dollars. I'm going to take five minutes and write an email that my computer will send to all of you, with no further effort on my part."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo

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.

Its a shame that sites like Getty have stopped SS raising subs prices but every time prices go up, the sites seem to take a bigger cut from us. So perhaps cheap subs aren't as bad as they seem? And SS isn't just a subs site, so anyone that only looks at subs commissions hasn't done their research properly and has no idea what they're talking about.

gostwyck · « **Reply #72 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:36 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on October 16, 2012, 14:16

Quote from: rubyroo on October 16, 2012, 10:56
The lowest I've ever earned on SS was 0.28c, back when I started. That was a while ago now.

The lowest I can earn today on iStock is 0.7c.

You didn't earn .07$ on Istock. That was on one of their cheap "subscription" sites like SS with very low royalties, according to yuri, where I don't allow my work to be sold. I am not subjected to low royalties like these.

I had a 6c sale at iStock, last year I think it was. The only reason I noticed it was because it was the first download for that image. Rob confirmed that it was due to 'ancient credits'. I've had a 22c sale at IS today too __ almost half what SS pays me for a sub.

So far this month SS has generated 3x more for me than iStock from the same portfolio. Well, that is 3x more than iStock have actually declared of my earnings anyway. I've no idea what my images have actually earned because iStock's 'developers' have broken the site again.

gostwyck · « **Reply #73 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:43 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2012, 14:30

And SS isn't just a subs site, so anyone that only looks at subs commissions hasn't done their research properly and has no idea what they're talking about.

True. This is actually the first month that single image sales, OD's and EL's at SS are more than 50% of my total. So far this month sub sales account for just 45% of my earnings at SS.

Wonder where all those customers for individual images have come from?

cthoman · « **Reply #74 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:48 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 16, 2012, 10:56

The lowest I've ever earned on SS was 0.28c, back when I started. That was a while ago now.

The lowest I can earn today on iStock is 0.7c.

Which smells worse one rotten fish or two? Wait... they both stink.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40286 times)

OM

cathyslife

ClaridgeJ

Smithore

OM

stockastic

sharpshot

djpadavona

Newsfocus1

dirkr

pro@stockphotos

Ploink

Poncke

gostwyck

rubyroo

heywoody

cthoman

gostwyck

rubyroo

pro@stockphotos

rubyroo

sharpshot

gostwyck

gostwyck

cthoman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors