Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40192 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #75 on:** October 16, 2012, 14:55 »

OD, SOD = 45% (have no EL)

close to 300$ in totals this month

ShadySue · « **Reply #76 on:** October 16, 2012, 15:12 »

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.

How would Yuri know where Rubyroo got a sale?

I think the lowest value credit we know about is 46c (though 42c is also in my mind for some reason). 15% of 46c is 9c, but the buyer may have bought the 46c bundle with one of the discount codes (I've seen 20% off codes, which get widely disseminated around the web) when the site was down and contributors get punished, even though it has NOTHING to do with us.

If only it was whichever idiot who thought up each new idea and forced the IT team to get it out so fast that it wasn't tested properly who bore all the cost of their madness.

RT · « **Reply #77 on:** October 16, 2012, 15:32 »

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

Its a shame that sites like Getty have stopped SS raising subs prices..............

Many would argue that it's a shame sites like Shutterstock gave Getty the idea in the first place. What goes around comes around.

The majority of people here love Shutterstock because they get their highest monthly income from them, and to be honest I can't blame them because most have never known any better or just can't understand otherwise, whilst I do upload to Shutterstock it's through wanting to maintain an Independence status rather than going exclusive somewhere, however I've said it before and I'll say it again if Shutterstock closed it's doors it would benefit us all. Shutterstock pay the lowest average RPD of the big 4, if all the Shutterstock customers went elsewhere we'd all benefit.

I expect I'll get a barage of negative replies to this, and that is why Jon Oringer can pay the lowest then sell the site and make millions, knock out a two minute non-personal patronising email and get loads of lemmings saying what a great place SS is. As someone said earlier I don't begrudge him anything, he's a businessman that has made a lot of money, but let's put things into perspective.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #78 on:** October 16, 2012, 15:55 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 15:32

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2012, 14:30
Its a shame that sites like Getty have stopped SS raising subs prices..............

Many would argue that it's a shame sites like Shutterstock gave Getty the idea in the first place. What goes around comes around.

The majority of people here love Shutterstock because they get their highest monthly income from them, and to be honest I can't blame them because most have never known any better or just can't understand otherwise, whilst I do upload to Shutterstock it's through wanting to maintain an Independence status rather than going exclusive somewhere, however I've said it before and I'll say it again if Shutterstock closed it's doors it would benefit us all. Shutterstock pay the lowest average RPD of the big 4, if all the Shutterstock customers went elsewhere we'd all benefit.

I expect I'll get a barage of negative replies to this, and that is why Jon Oringer can pay the lowest then sell the site and make millions, knock out a two minute non-personal patronising email and get loads of lemmings saying what a great place SS is. As someone said earlier I don't begrudge him anything, he's a businessman that has made a lot of money, but let's put things into perspective.

not that I don´t agree in/at some point but it seems quite impossible to see SS closing doors no? (making your analysis irrelevant)

not to mention that our rpd is going up, in my case not far from FT, DT, 123RF (etc etc)

AND already on the same level as IS considering PP sales

RT · « **Reply #79 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:20 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 16, 2012, 15:55

not that I don´t agree in/at some point but it seems quite impossible to see SS closing doors no? (making your analysis irrelevant)

not to mention that our rpd is going up, in my case not far from FT, DT, 123RF (etc etc)

AND already on the same level as IS considering PP sales

No I don't think SS will close it's doors anytime soon, but I wish it did. By your very own statement (which tells me you understand what I mean) if every 1000 downloads you had on SS was transferred to another site you'd make more money, hence I struggle to understand why SS has so many 'fanboys'.

Yes SS makes people lots of money, but the buyers that go there aren't doing it for fun they're doing it because they need that many images, if SS closed they'd still need those images but they'd have to go to a site that pays us more for them. The basic fundamental for any business is to get the most profit from your product, I've never understood the folk who cheer on the site that gives us the least?

cthoman · « **Reply #80 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:20 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 15:32

Many would argue that it's a shame sites like Shutterstock gave Getty the idea in the first place. What goes around comes around.

The majority of people here love Shutterstock because they get their highest monthly income from them, and to be honest I can't blame them because most have never known any better or just can't understand otherwise, whilst I do upload to Shutterstock it's through wanting to maintain an Independence status rather than going exclusive somewhere, however I've said it before and I'll say it again if Shutterstock closed it's doors it would benefit us all. Shutterstock pay the lowest average RPD of the big 4, if all the Shutterstock customers went elsewhere we'd all benefit.

I expect I'll get a barage of negative replies to this, and that is why Jon Oringer can pay the lowest then sell the site and make millions, knock out a two minute non-personal patronising email and get loads of lemmings saying what a great place SS is. As someone said earlier I don't begrudge him anything, he's a businessman that has made a lot of money, but let's put things into perspective.

Totally agree.

sharpshot · « **Reply #81 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:21 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 15:32

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2012, 14:30
Its a shame that sites like Getty have stopped SS raising subs prices..............

Many would argue that it's a shame sites like Shutterstock gave Getty the idea in the first place. What goes around comes around.

The majority of people here love Shutterstock because they get their highest monthly income from them, and to be honest I can't blame them because most have never known any better or just can't understand otherwise, whilst I do upload to Shutterstock it's through wanting to maintain an Independence status rather than going exclusive somewhere, however I've said it before and I'll say it again if Shutterstock closed it's doors it would benefit us all. Shutterstock pay the lowest average RPD of the big 4, if all the Shutterstock customers went elsewhere we'd all benefit.

I expect I'll get a barage of negative replies to this, and that is why Jon Oringer can pay the lowest then sell the site and make millions, knock out a two minute non-personal patronising email and get loads of lemmings saying what a great place SS is. As someone said earlier I don't begrudge him anything, he's a businessman that has made a lot of money, but let's put things into perspective.

I can understand your point to a certain extent but I still prefer more money to a higher RPD. I get a much higher RPD with alamy than all the microstock sites but they make me less money. My RPD has gone up with DT but I earn less than I used to because they sell a lot less. And I still think that if Getty and the other sites hadn't started paying less than the $0.38 SS were paying me for subs, SS would of carried on increasing it. I'm just not sure that would of made me more money, as every time they increased prices, we seemed to lose a bit on the commission raise.

I also think that Getty/istock or some other site would of thought of microstock subs if SS didn't exist. So I don't see the point in blaming Jon Oringer for coming up with the model. It's the same as people from the trad sites blaming Bruce Livingstone for starting microstock. If he hadn't done it, someone else would.

Poncke · « **Reply #82 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:28 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 16:20

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 16, 2012, 15:55
not that I don´t agree in/at some point but it seems quite impossible to see SS closing doors no? (making your analysis irrelevant)

not to mention that our rpd is going up, in my case not far from FT, DT, 123RF (etc etc)

AND already on the same level as IS considering PP sales

No I don't think SS will close it's doors anytime soon, but I wish it did. By your very own statement (which tells me you understand what I mean) if every 1000 downloads you had on SS was transferred to another site you'd make more money, hence I struggle to understand why SS has so many 'fanboys'.

Yes SS makes people lots of money, but the buyers that go there aren't doing it for fun they're doing it because they need that many images, if SS closed they'd still need those images but they'd have to go to a site that pays us more for them. The basic fundamental for any business is to get the most profit from your product, I've never understood the folk who cheer on the site that gives us the least?

You get 750 images for 249 dollar. So SS closes their door and then buyers go to another site. Where they pay, what, 7500 dollar for those 750 images. Do you really think they still download those 750 images. Every month?

No, SS has so many DLs is because its cheap, so people download more. Even bloggers who need an image can afford it. Ask them 50 times more for the same image and they will either go to Flickr or shoot photos themselves.

heywoody · « **Reply #83 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:32 »

So.... What we need is the prices at DT, with their exclusive commissions coupled with SS volumes. Let's all go exclusive with DT and the buyers will follow.

(Only half joking)

RT · « **Reply #84 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:35 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2012, 16:21

I can understand your point to a certain extent but I still prefer more money to a higher RPD. I get a much higher RPD with alamy than all the microstock sites but they make me less money. My RPD has gone up with DT but I earn less than I used to because they sell a lot less. And I still think that if Getty and the other sites hadn't started paying less than the $0.38 SS were paying me for subs, SS would of carried on increasing it. I'm just not sure that would of made me more money, as every time they increased prices, we seemed to lose a bit on the commission raise.

I also think that Getty/istock or some other site would of thought of microstock subs if SS didn't exist. So I don't see the point in blaming Jon Oringer for coming up with the model. It's the same as people from the trad sites blaming Bruce Livingstone for starting microstock. If he hadn't done it, someone else would.

Actually my point is not aimed to change anyone or anything because as you quite rightly pointed out if "they" hadn't thought of it someone else may well have done, and FTR I don't "blame" Bruce or Jon, in fact I wish it was I who thought of it when they did, they weren't great businessmen either (as I've often seen written}, they were men who started a business that turned great, in Bruce's case I actually think he was a terrible businessman and I can only imagine what the guys at Getty were thinking when he signed on the dotted line!!
You said Alamy pay you the highest RPD and DT the highest of the microsites, that is the basis of my point, sing their praises not the praises of the site that pays you the least irrelevant whether it makes you the most each month.

Poncke · « **Reply #85 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:37 »

But it IS about where you make the most money.

RT · « **Reply #86 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:43 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 16, 2012, 16:28

You get 750 images for 249 dollar. So SS closes their door and then buyers go to another site. Where they pay, what, 7500 dollar for those 750 images. Do you really think they still download those 750 images. Every month?

No, SS has so many DLs is because its cheap, so people download more. Even bloggers who need an image can afford it. Ask them 50 times more for the same image and they will either go to Flickr or shoot photos themselves.

I'll give you an answer when you can show me you understand the business, which at the moment you haven't, sorry. For instance the DT subscription package is $240 (actually £149 because I'm in the UK) for 750 images not $7500. Also if you could give me the details of one single blogger that pays $249 to get images for their site that would be handy.

RT · « **Reply #87 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:45 »

Quote from: Poncke on October 16, 2012, 16:37

But it IS about where you make the most money.

And if everybody bought at the place that pays you the most then you would make MORE money - come on it's really not that hard to understand is it?

RT · « **Reply #88 on:** October 16, 2012, 16:50 »

Quote from: heywoody on October 16, 2012, 16:32

So.... What we need is the prices at DT, with their exclusive commissions coupled with SS volumes. Let's all go exclusive with DT and the buyers will follow.

(Only half joking)

You say you're half joking but yes actually that's pretty much it, except for the exclusive bit obviously, because then they'd have a monopoly and we'd all be stuffed.

As I said earlier I don't expect things to change, I just wish people to stop kissing up to a site that actually pays them the least, makes them look stupid but hey it's a free world.

cthoman · « **Reply #89 on:** October 16, 2012, 17:04 »

Great series of posts RT. I think the same thoughts all the time, and I'm amazed that more people don't think the same thing. Especially after we got a peek at the SS IPO books. It really shows how very few contributors are making anything substantial at SS.

RT · « **Reply #90 on:** October 16, 2012, 17:14 »

^ Thanks

dirkr · « **Reply #91 on:** October 16, 2012, 17:19 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 16:45

Quote from: Poncke on October 16, 2012, 16:37
But it IS about where you make the most money.

And if everybody bought at the place that pays you the most then you would make MORE money - come on it's really not that hard to understand is it?

You're right. But "the place that pays you most" is not the place that has the highest RPD, but the place that pays the highest royalty percentage (because the number of images sold is not only a function of the number of images needed, but even more a function of available budget).

And that's not SS, but certainly not IS and not DT either...

So we should praise places like GL, Stockfresh, Featurepics, Pond5, Alamy, Zoonar, ... where we get 50%+

lisafx · « **Reply #92 on:** October 16, 2012, 17:41 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 16:20

close it's doors anytime soon, but I wish it did. By your very own statement (which tells me you understand what I mean) if every 1000 downloads you had on SS was transferred to another site you'd make more money, hence I struggle to understand why SS has so many 'fanboys'.

I understand your point, but it really isn't that simple. If every thousand sales I get on SS was on Istock or FT then I probably wouldn't get most of them at all because Istock and Fotolia's searches are so jerry rigged. Not to mention IT issues.

At least my customers can FIND my stuff on Shutterstock. It isn't shoved way to the back behind every Exclusive, BS infinity collection, serial uploader, etc. and dozens of other criteria designed to boost the site's profits with no regard to consistency or customer needs.

I am certainly no "fanboy" (or girl) but I do appreciate the fact that Shutterstock has managed to run their business so sensibly. You can disagree with their business model, and I understand why you would, but at least they have run it competently and without lowering conditions for contributors. That bears acknowledging, IMO.

PS- I agree about supporting the smaller sites too.

stockastic · « **Reply #93 on:** October 16, 2012, 18:33 »

I understand that Oringer did well with SS and made a lot of money by apparently honest means. I just don't see why I, personally, should be pumped up about his success.

We're not that different from agricultural producers. A small number of middlemen have gotten control of the supply chain and forced producers' prices all the way to the ground. The logistics of the business are such that it's not really possible for buyers to connect directly with the producers, or for the producers to organize and bargain collectively.

That's how capitalism works; but let's face it, to some degree SS's success has been at our expense. Can't we at least try to imagine a better marketplace - from the producers' point of view? Or is this really the "best of all possible worlds"?

velocicarpo · « **Reply #94 on:** October 16, 2012, 22:13 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 15:32

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2012, 14:30
Its a shame that sites like Getty have stopped SS raising subs prices..............

Many would argue that it's a shame sites like Shutterstock gave Getty the idea in the first place. What goes around comes around.

The majority of people here love Shutterstock because they get their highest monthly income from them, and to be honest I can't blame them because most have never known any better or just can't understand otherwise, whilst I do upload to Shutterstock it's through wanting to maintain an Independence status rather than going exclusive somewhere, however I've said it before and I'll say it again if Shutterstock closed it's doors it would benefit us all. Shutterstock pay the lowest average RPD of the big 4, if all the Shutterstock customers went elsewhere we'd all benefit.

I expect I'll get a barage of negative replies to this, and that is why Jon Oringer can pay the lowest then sell the site and make millions, knock out a two minute non-personal patronising email and get loads of lemmings saying what a great place SS is. As someone said earlier I don't begrudge him anything, he's a businessman that has made a lot of money, but let's put things into perspective.

Well said.

RT · « **Reply #95 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 16, 2012, 17:41

I understand your point, but it really isn't that simple. If every thousand sales I get on SS was on Istock or FT then I probably wouldn't get most of them at all because Istock and Fotolia's searches are so jerry rigged. Not to mention IT issues.

At least my customers can FIND my stuff on Shutterstock. It isn't shoved way to the back behind every Exclusive, BS infinity collection, serial uploader, etc. and dozens of other criteria designed to boost the site's profits with no regard to consistency or customer needs.

I am certainly no "fanboy" (or girl) but I do appreciate the fact that Shutterstock has managed to run their business so sensibly. You can disagree with their business model, and I understand why you would, but at least they have run it competently and without lowering conditions for contributors. That bears acknowledging, IMO.

PS- I agree about supporting the smaller sites too.

We could discuss other sites issues all day and each person would have a different opinion, and I certainly understand why you like SS as do others, but to put things on a level perspective Shutterstock is certainly not without faults, there have been numerous bugs, problems with the search, photos 'disappearing' after upload etc etc
And although you may not acknowledge it, their search is rigged the same as every other site, but it just so happens it's rigged in your favour (and mine and every other 'high end' contributor) so you therefore don't see it as a problem.

I agree SS has been run sensibly which is why Jon has just pocketed a huge amount of money, they may not have 'lowered conditions for contributors' but in return they haven't increased commissions for many many years at a time when clearly they were making huge profits and the business was increasing.

In short SS is the same as every other site, their intention is to make as much money as possible through our images, they've succeeded in doing so by selling more of our stuff whilst giving us the least.

Oh and I don't actually advocate 'supporting the smaller sites', I'm not trying to support anyone other than myself, I'm doing this as a business. I just want the highest number of sales at the highest RPD I can get, and to a certain extent I don't really care how they treat me, I'm not doing this for a warm cuddly feeling, I'm doing it for money.

sharpshot · « **Reply #96 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:23 »

Quote from: RT on October 16, 2012, 16:45

Quote from: Poncke on October 16, 2012, 16:37
But it IS about where you make the most money.

And if everybody bought at the place that pays you the most then you would make MORE money - come on it's really not that hard to understand is it?

Easy to understand but impossible in reality. It would be nice if we all left the lower paying sites and the buyers moved with us and bought as many images on sites that charge more and pay us more. That's not going to happen. Even if it did, we might end up on 1% commission and earning less than we do now.

I do like alamy and have been as positive about them as I can. Not so much with DT, they increased prices and my sales have gone down. So I now earn less there than I used to, unlike SS. DT might be a great site in theory but in reality, they're getting worse for me.

RT · « **Reply #97 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:31 »

Quote from: dirkr on October 16, 2012, 17:19

You're right. But "the place that pays you most" is not the place that has the highest RPD, but the place that pays the highest royalty percentage (because the number of images sold is not only a function of the number of images needed, but even more a function of available budget).

Percentages mean nothing, RPD is the key factor along with sales quantity, would you prefer a 30% commission of $1 or 20% of $2?

Quote from: dirkr on October 16, 2012, 17:19

And that's not SS, but certainly not IS and not DT either...

So we should praise places like GL, Stockfresh, Featurepics, ~~Pond5, Alamy,~~ Zoonar, ... where we get 50%+

No absolutely not, praise them you're joking, especially not Stockfresh, the whole point of microstock is that you need large amounts of sales and a recent thread on Stockfresh shows that they're not selling anything so as I said earlier percentage figures are pointless. I've ruled through Alamy and Pond5 because they do sell and at a decent commission.

RT · « **Reply #98 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:45 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 17, 2012, 02:23

Easy to understand but impossible in reality. It would be nice if we all left the lower paying sites and the buyers moved with us and bought as many images on sites that charge more and pay us more. That's not going to happen. Even if it did, we might end up on 1% commission and earning less than we do now.

And this is why as a business you are and will make less and less money year on in microstock, not just you but a lot of people myself included. And earlier on you blamed Getty for copying the Shutterstock business model, can you really blame them when so many contributors are saying how great it is there.

'Sell more Pay less to make the minions happy and us rich' and by point of this whole thread 'every once in a while send out a bulk email telling them Thanks'

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #99 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:54 »

Yes good post RT! and I agree whatever Bruce was thinking when he signed he must have been nuts. Just imagine where he would have been today, had he carried on with his IS.

However I do agree with Lisa. At least buyers can FIND your images at SS and this is really what its all about, isnt it. Most if not all other sites have messed up their searches, there are bugs, glitches everywhere. I would hate being a regular buyer in todays djungle of agencies.

The Getty strategy of slowly trying to bring things back to Trad/normal, isnt working either and mainly because the majority of their old style photographers are ofcourse joining the rf, micro industry. They really havent got much option.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40192 times)

luissantos84

ShadySue

RT

luissantos84

RT

cthoman

sharpshot

Poncke

heywoody

RT

Poncke

RT

RT

RT

cthoman

RT

dirkr

lisafx

stockastic

velocicarpo

RT

sharpshot

RT

RT

ClaridgeJ

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors