MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: 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 :)
-
nice letter :D
-
Got it, too. I wish them the best.
I deactivated my account a few months ago to turn exclusive at iStock. Beginning to think I may have made a (temporary) mistake, not based on income, but based on the enjoyment and ease of working with a company. I just wish SS would offer some means of making more than pennies per sale (on the majority of sales....in my experience anyways).
-
See how easy it is.
Just a letter, just some kind words.
Smart move.
-
Despite the fact that it was an automated message being sent out to most likely all contributors I thought it was a nice move to keep us in the loop.
I almost forgot about the IPO so therefore I checked into it again.
Today, Jon became officially a very wealthy person and I truly hope he will stay with SS and do his best to keep it successful. He deserves it.
-
it's nice to be treated like normal human being with feelings, isn't it? such a pity that other agencies just don't get it.
I wish them the best!
-
Despite the fact that it was an automated message being sent out to most likely all contributors I thought it was a nice move to keep us in the loop..
You mean he didn't type, sign and send it personally to a selected few? ;)
I can't remember the last time someone from upper management in microstock contacted me for anything else than to announce a "rate adjustment" - as you say, it was a nice move and it felt good to get a pat on the back instead of a kick in the ass, for once in a while...
-
it's nice to be treated like normal human being with feelings, isn't it? such a pity that other agencies just don't get it.
I wish them the best!
Yes indeed. I appreciated that letter very much! Thanks so much to Jon.
-
so shutterstock was started as a website to sell his own image..so he is the first contributor, i wonder does his portfolio still in shutterstock?
-
Why is everyone so happy about this??
Soon it'll be being run by suits squeezing every dime out of each and every one of us. SS has been great until now, I fear this 'lovely heartfelt letter' from Jon is merely a harbinger of changes afoot.
-
so shutterstock was started as a website to sell his own image..so he is the first contributor, i wonder does his portfolio still in shutterstock?
Here;
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html)
Jon used to have about 15K images there but his port is now much smaller. He was originally listed as 'Shutterstock' rather than JEO and, slightly strangely, is actually contributor #81. Maybe that was his lucky number or something.
-
as we say here, "being friendly costs no money".
Thats what he is doing. Being friendly.
And yes, it is mass produced, but it still reached us, and was kind.
Compare that to the darkness and arrogancy of other agencies.
-
Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.
-
Why is everyone so happy about this??
Soon it'll be being run by suits squeezing every dime out of each and every one of us. SS has been great until now, I fear this 'lovely heartfelt letter' from Jon is merely a harbinger of changes afoot.
I can't say I feel any doom or gloom about it. I'd say it is more apathy.
-
"This milestone is the result of many years of hard work and innovation, and perhaps most importantly, the incredible talent of each of our contributing artists. Together we have built a thriving, diverse, global creative marketplace that spans more than 150 countries. "
At least one "owner" that recognizes our input as part of his business success and his dependance on us. Unlike the general attitude I met since starting in stock of "you should be glad we are even considering your work".
-
All those good feelings are now history. The company now belongs to investors, and its purpose is to generate bigger profits immediately, by any means necessary, so they can cash out with big gains. This won't be good for contributors.
-
Suits are not all dumb. They can look at IS and figure out it is best not to get greedy. Nice to receive the email.
-
"This milestone is the result of many years of hard work and innovation, and perhaps most importantly, the incredible talent of each of our contributing artists. Together we have built a thriving, diverse, global creative marketplace that spans more than 150 countries. "
At least one "owner" that recognizes our input as part of his business success and his dependance on us. Unlike the general attitude I met since starting in stock of "you should be glad we are even considering your work".
This statement makes me laugh a little bit. They value our work by assigning one of the lowest values in the industry to it. ;D
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D
-
"This milestone is the result of many years of hard work and innovation, and perhaps most importantly, the incredible talent of each of our contributing artists. Together we have built a thriving, diverse, global creative marketplace that spans more than 150 countries. "
At least one "owner" that recognizes our input as part of his business success and his dependance on us. Unlike the general attitude I met since starting in stock of "you should be glad we are even considering your work".
This statement makes me laugh a little bit. They value our work by assigning one of the lowest values in the industry to it. ;D
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;D
and yet, still get it right to be many of the contributor's top earners ;) (at least they still make me laugh to the bank as well). ;D
-
A mass produced mass mailing sent to all 35,000 of us.
Same thing for everyone made by the mail dept by order of Jon to be sent to all.
Yes it was nice to get one but I would prefer and think most here would as well think that perhaps it is time for some type of a small raise for all of us 35,000 unique and talented artists.
Yes
-
A mass produced mass mailing sent to all 35,000 of us.
Same thing for everyone made by the mail dept by order of Jon to be sent to all.
Ow come on, you cant expect him to write 35000 personal letters. Get with it, its 2012.
-
A mass produced mass mailing sent to all 35,000 of us.
Same thing for everyone made by the mail dept by order of Jon to be sent to all.
Yes it was nice to get one but I would prefer and think most here would as well think that perhaps it is time for some type of a small raise for all of us 35,000 unique and talented artists.
Reminds me of a birthday card I once saw. On the front it says "For your birthday, you have your choice of an expensive gift or a simple card." Open it up, and on the inside it says "I see you've chosen the card."
-
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.
-
All those good feelings are now history. The company now belongs to investors, and its purpose is to generate bigger profits immediately, by any means necessary, so they can cash out with big gains. This won't be good for contributors.
I thought Jon was keeping majority control; am I wrong about that?
-
A mass produced mass mailing sent to all 35,000 of us.
Same thing for everyone made by the mail dept by order of Jon to be sent to all.
Ow come on, you cant expect him to write 35000 personal letters. Get with it, its 2012.
+1
No one in any business has the authority to write a letter and then states it comes from the CEO or MD. Although he did not come over and shook our hands individually, the letter and the words it contains originates from him (or his Marketing or Contributor Relations Manager, or whom ever, and then he approved it). Sigh.......... (Poncke will they ever grow up) ::)
-
...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 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo)
-
Sure, the main shareholders and executives will now run the company to the ground, now that they have the focus of the whole stock market on them. All the doom and gloom profits, it is definitely now time to jump ship. Payout as quickly as you can and start your own agencies, because if this is how you are going on about the top earner, swim I tell ye, swim! There is no hope for us at all!!!! :'(
-
I got a personal invitation to the celebratory BBQ. Bring your own meat, salads provided.
-
Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.
Bruce did his farewell in a very long post at the istock forums, thanking everyone, etc.
-
Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.
Bruce did his farewell in a very long post at the istock forums, thanking everyone, etc.
I don't consider that personal. Not everybody reads forum posts.
-
Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.
Bruce did his farewell in a very long post at the istock forums, thanking everyone, etc.
I don't consider that personal. Not everybody reads forum posts.
But everyone CAN read the forums.
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
Took about a much effort as today's HQ Update at iS, yet somehow managed to convey a much more optimistic, appreciative and hopeful message that didn't leave you with a sick feeling in your stomach.
-
Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.
Bruce did his farewell in a very long post at the istock forums, thanking everyone, etc.
Sorry, but that's not the same than sending the message to every single contributor's email.
It's really not the same.
I'm not saying that Bruce wasn't as sincere about it - I just think that it does have a more personal touch receiving this message in your personal email account rather than only being visible to the forum readers.
It's a massive difference.
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
Took about a much effort as today's HQ Update at iS, yet somehow managed to convey a much more optimistic, appreciative and hopeful message that didn't leave you with a sick feeling in your stomach.
It did all that, without actually involving anything of even token value to contributors. A warm thanks indeed.
-
Most importantly SS simply performs!
Let actions follow your words and your reputation will grow.
IS managed to drive things straight into the crapper - sorry but that's been established.
SS is now operating on a new level and we will see how things pan out.
Judging from prior business decisions Jon has made, I feel much more confident that he knows what's going on with his company compared to ANY other microstock agency.
Once SS drops to 2nd or third place on the right hand side, we can discuss this issue again. For now I'm doing just fine with SS's business operations.
-
A mass produced mass mailing sent to all 35,000 of us.
Same thing for everyone made by the mail dept by order of Jon to be sent to all.
Yes it was nice to get one but I would prefer and think most here would as well think that perhaps it is time for some type of a small raise for all of us 35,000 unique and talented artists.
+1. Actually I was skiping the text half way through and was surprised not to find any "goody" like a raise or some minor benefit....
-
Well stated. THey need to share the profits a little bit more. 8)
A mass produced mass mailing sent to all 35,000 of us.
Same thing for everyone made by the mail dept by order of Jon to be sent to all.
Yes it was nice to get one but I would prefer and think most here would as well think that perhaps it is time for some type of a small raise for all of us 35,000 unique and talented artists.
Yes
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
Pah, you're just envious that we get e-mails from the bigwig, while all you have is Lobo... ;D ;)
-
Hmm...my email hasn't arrived yet. :-[
-
Nice to get the email but I would rather have some free shares. They could give their contributors 5% of the company. If they split that between the top 1,000 contributors, it would be a nice gesture and an incentive to keep working with SS.
-
Nice to get the email but I would rather have some free shares. They could give their contributors 5% of the company. If they split that between the top 1,000 contributors, it would be a nice gesture and an incentive to keep working with SS.
5% of the company ? It would be good but I doubt that someones going to give $25m as a good gesture.
-
As if to prep me for the IPO email, I had a BDE on SS the day before the IPO with 19 dl's of which 3 were ODD's..........that may not sound a lot but I only have 100 images there. So, I'm a fan and the letter was a nice gesture.
(When you're used to FT, anything is a vast improvement). ;D
-
Nice to get the email but I would rather have some free shares. They could give their contributors 5% of the company. If they split that between the top 1,000 contributors, it would be a nice gesture and an incentive to keep working with SS.
5% of the company ? It would be good but I doubt that someones going to give $25m as a good gesture.
If it helps increase the share price for the remaining 95% of the shares, it would be money well spent. I know its not likely to happen but the best way to get me interested in microstock again would be to give me some financial incentive. The big site owners have all become wealthy while the contributors that have made it possible are finding it harder to make money. It was nice to get the email but it doesn't change my pessimism about the future of microstock.
-
hi gostwyck, thanks for the link.. it is quite interesting to know it started as his own channel to provide photos..
so shutterstock was started as a website to sell his own image..so he is the first contributor, i wonder does his portfolio still in shutterstock?
Here;
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url])
Jon used to have about 15K images there but his port is now much smaller. He was originally listed as 'Shutterstock' rather than JEO and, slightly strangely, is actually contributor #81. Maybe that was his lucky number or something.
-
Nice to get the email but I would rather have some free shares.
+1
The e-mail was great and I think he does appreciate his contributors. However, it was a missed opportunity to offer us all stock options based on number of sales or something - then we could all be owner-contributors with a real stake in the future of the company. That would be the ultimate expression of appreciation.
-
However, it was a missed opportunity to offer us all stock options based on number of sales or something - then we could all be owner-contributors with a real stake in the future of the company. That would be the ultimate expression of appreciation.
He might still do that as he still owns 56% of the shares. It's quite possible that, at some time in the future, he could offer stock to contributors at a discounted rate. It has to be one step at a time though and the stock first needs to establish it's market worth. They are down a bit on early trading today;
http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:SSTK (http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:SSTK)
-
I'd rather have a raise than stock in the company. I don't see SS, good as they are, as another amazon that can expand broadly into a range of businesses. It's a good business, but I think the potential for huge profit growth - unless they acquire Getty & co from Carlyle Group and the unpleasant Mr. Klein - is limited.
Even upping our earnings a small amount per sale would be a very nice thank-you. And I did think the letter was a classy gesture - although putting in the contributor name would have been the cherry on the cupcake :)
-
Download of 2 photos per second.....Thats a big league, wow!
-
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.
-
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.
Tell me about it! SS has been going insane for me this month. I'm actually on target for a BME in October ... by a ridiculous 30%! In the last hour I've just sold a very simple image for $71 commission with another of those 'Single & Other Downloads' licenses. Hope it keeps up!
-
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." ;D ;D
-
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." ;D ;D
Or the old ebb and flow. :D
-
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.
-
Yes, a 5c or more rise by download could be a real gesture, a real proof.
-
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." ;D ;D
Or the old ebb and flow. :D
Definitely that.
-
Nothing but ebb for me, since the IPO.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
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.
-
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 :o
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
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.
-
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 :o
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?
-
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.
-
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 ;D
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
-
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.
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
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 (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.
-
Yeah, the "wow factor" on IS is a 7c sale - on SS it's a $120 - $300 SOD ;D
You're so right! Two very different kinds of "wow"...
Agree with the rest of your post also.
-
The lowest I've ever earned on SS was 0.28c, back when I started. That was a while ago now.
The lowest I can earn today on iStock is 0.7c.
You didn't earn .07$ 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.
-
Yes I did. It's the lowest amount I've ever been paid anywhere, and it was at.... (read my lips)... ISTOCK.
-
...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."
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/shutterstock-surges-after-ipo-priced-above-range-at-17.html?cmpid=yhoo[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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? :)
-
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. ;D
-
OD, SOD = 45% (have no EL)
close to 300$ in totals this month
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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) ;)
-
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.
-
But it IS about where you make the most money.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ Thanks
-
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%+
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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'
-
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.
-
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'
Isn't it the same with everything in a capitalist system? Its still better than any other economic system but it has its faults and I'd like to see something better come along. Unfortunately that doesn't look likely any time soon, so we have to make the most of what we have.
-
.........so we have to make the most of what we have.
Indeed we do, but we don't have to say how wonderful it is ;)
-
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.
Actually one of the reasons I think their strategy isn't working because of the very reason Bruce started iStockphoto in the first place, and the other is because Shutterstock opened a few years later and started the subscription model, which ruined the industry for ever. As you know many of the 'trads' blame iS for the demise, I don't deny it was a major factor but IMO it was Jon and SS that killed the industry for contributors with no attempt to get it back, you can't say that about iS.
-
Can I just point out that if all the subscription sites shut their doors we wouldn't see anything like the same volume of sales "on demand". The lower total cost and zero marginal cost (as most won't use their full quota) means that we are selling a lot more licenses at SS with the subs model than we would be without it. Not saying that makes it a good model for us, or the total is necessarily higher one way or the other, but it does mean it isn't as simple as saying we would make the same 3000 sales on demand that we made on subs, just for more money.
-
.........so we have to make the most of what we have.
Indeed we do, but we don't have to say how wonderful it is ;)
Are you the 'what's wonderful' police? (LOL)
What constitutes 'wonderful' will be different for each of us when weighed against the events of our lives. I'm not here pretending something is wonderful for me when it isn't. Perhaps my expectations and needs are very different to yours, but I don't think it's necessary to be 'down' on people for enjoying and celebrating the things that happen to work for them.
-
.........so we have to make the most of what we have.
Indeed we do, but we don't have to say how wonderful it is ;)
Are you the 'what's wonderful' police? (LOL)
What constitutes 'wonderful' will be different for each of us when weighed against the events of our lives. I'm not here pretending something is wonderful for me when it isn't. Perhaps my expectations and needs are very different to yours, but I don't think it's necessary to be 'down' on people for enjoying and celebrating the things that happen to work for them.
No I'm not but I wasn't addressing you I was replying to Sharpshot.
But you are right we all have different needs and wants. You're free to have low expectations and think it's wonderful, I'm not stopping you, just don't expect me (or as it happens more people than I thought) to understand or join you.
-
I didn't say I had low expectations. Just (apparently) different ones to you. I don't expect the world to operate the way I want it to, I just try to find opportunities that exist and make the best of them.
Well... that's how I am on a good day anyway. ;)
-
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.
Actually one of the reasons I think their strategy isn't working because of the very reason Bruce started iStockphoto in the first place, and the other is because Shutterstock opened a few years later and started the subscription model, which ruined the industry for ever. As you know many of the 'trads' blame iS for the demise, I don't deny it was a major factor but IMO it was Jon and SS that killed the industry for contributors with no attempt to get it back, you can't say that about iS.
yes there is little doubt the real industry was killed and especially by the subs model. Now we are stuck with it for better or worse.
How do you recon the old industry would look today, without RF and micro? better or worse? or the same as before? whats your thoughts.
-
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.
However, in some areas, growers have banded together to form co-operatives and linked with buyers who care about Fair Trade and things have got better for them. However, that seems, as far as I can see, to rely on geographical proximity and the willingness of buyers to support Fair Trade, otherwise other growers would emphasise that they are undercutting, though in some cases they're already running at a loss, so doing that would just be cutting their throats.
There are differences with stock photos in that a reasonable proportion of suppliers don't need the money to live. If they totted up their equipment, other expenses and hours, they'd be making a loss too, but as they have other income sources, and maybe had a lot of the equipment already, they don't mind. So even if those who rely on stock for survival all pulled their ports, which would be very difficult for them, there are always going to be new hobbyists coming in, some of whom would be the Yuris and Seans of tomorrow.
-
How do you recon the old industry would look today, without RF and micro? better or worse? or the same as before? whats your thoughts.
Crikey that's too deep a question to answer properly here.
I think things have gone too far now to be rescued, or even to find a level field. Scrape an existence while you can!
-
How do you recon the old industry would look today, without RF and micro? better or worse? or the same as before? whats your thoughts.
Crikey that's too deep a question to answer properly here.
I think things have gone too far now to be rescued, or even to find a level field. Scrape an existence while you can!
Yes, my thoughts as well. Its kind of got way too far.
-
Yeah, in the good old days, there were tens of thousands less small producers and millions less small consumers then computers came out of the air conditioned rooms and the WWW arrived and weekend shooters were suddenly able to produce work comparable to the pros and.....
Hey, it is what it is, complaining about it is like complaining about the weather
-
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?
But that's not the choice you would have. That's assuming that doubling the price will have no impact on the number of licences sold. Not realistic at all.
That's why I think RPD is not important (in the long run), but royalty percentage is (to determine how much of the money spent globally on stock imagery ends up in contributors' pockets).
And if you argue that "RPD along with sales quantity" is most important, then again Shutterstock would be (according to the poll on the right) is "the best" - because the produce the highest monthly return (which is nothing else than the product of RPD and sales number).
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.
I didn't express correctly what I wanted to say: These are not the sites that right now do provide good numbers (and therefore should receive praise), but these are the ones who pay decent commission percentages and should be recommended if we did have a chance to decide where the business moves...
-
Can I just point out that if all the subscription sites shut their doors we wouldn't see anything like the same volume of sales "on demand". The lower total cost and zero marginal cost (as most won't use their full quota) means that we are selling a lot more licenses at SS with the subs model than we would be without it. Not saying that makes it a good model for us, or the total is necessarily higher one way or the other, but it does mean it isn't as simple as saying we would make the same 3000 sales on demand that we made on subs, just for more money.
+1.
That's exactly the point why I think RPD is the wrong metric to determine where I would wish the customer money would be spent...
-
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.
Actually one of the reasons I think their strategy isn't working because of the very reason Bruce started iStockphoto in the first place, and the other is because Shutterstock opened a few years later and started the subscription model, which ruined the industry for ever. As you know many of the 'trads' blame iS for the demise, I don't deny it was a major factor but IMO it was Jon and SS that killed the industry for contributors with no attempt to get it back, you can't say that about iS.
yes there is little doubt the real industry was killed and especially by the subs model. Now we are stuck with it for better or worse.
How do you recon the old industry would look today, without RF and micro? better or worse? or the same as before? whats your thoughts.
if RF and Micro didn't exist there would be RM and free. I think we can thank micro for monetizing the blogging, educational, small business and 'home use' of our photos.
-
Can I just point out that if all the subscription sites shut their doors we wouldn't see anything like the same volume of sales "on demand". The lower total cost and zero marginal cost (as most won't use their full quota) means that we are selling a lot more licenses at SS with the subs model than we would be without it. Not saying that makes it a good model for us, or the total is necessarily higher one way or the other, but it does mean it isn't as simple as saying we would make the same 3000 sales on demand that we made on subs, just for more money.
Sorry missed your post earlier. - We'll never know because it won't happen, just as we don't know whether people would use 'on demand' or not (although you brought the 'in demand' topic up not me), and just as we don't know whether we'd see the same number of sales. Other sites have subscription packages just like SS and yet they manage to produce a higher average RPD with lower sales figures, and they manage to do that by selling our images at scaleable sizes/prices as oppose to the XXL you get on SS.
Shutterstock sell the most but pay the least, - some people seem happy with this, and happy with the email from Jon Oringer, and even more incredible happy that he's personally just got millions whilst not having raised commissions for years. No doubt they'll be happy if commissions are cut to appease the new shareholders, so long of course that they get an email saying thanks!
-
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.
-
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.
However, in some areas, growers have banded together to form co-operatives and linked with buyers who care about Fair Trade and things have got better for them. However, that seems, as far as I can see, to rely on geographical proximity and the willingness of buyers to support Fair Trade, otherwise other growers would emphasise that they are undercutting, though in some cases they're already running at a loss, so doing that would just be cutting their throats.
There are differences with stock photos in that a reasonable proportion of suppliers don't need the money to live. If they totted up their equipment, other expenses and hours, they'd be making a loss too, but as they have other income sources, and maybe had a lot of the equipment already, they don't mind. So even if those who rely on stock for survival all pulled their ports, which would be very difficult for them, there are always going to be new hobbyists coming in, some of whom would be the Yuris and Seans of tomorrow.
All true, and these are reasons why the photography business will continue to evolve and change. Right now we might be at the high-water mark for the 'crowdsourcing' model. It has great advantages for these web-based middlemen, but some drawbacks too. As we're now seeing, eventually these agencies end up as huge warehouses full of poorly indexed cr@p with some good stuff here and there. Oringer is probably getting out at the right time. In the near future, there will be huge pressure on SS to increase profits but no simple or easy way for it to do so. Things may get ugly after that.
-
Other sites have subscription packages just like SS and yet they manage to produce a higher average RPD with lower sales figures, and they manage to do that by selling our images at scaleable sizes/prices as oppose to the XXL you get on SS.
Shutterstock sell the most but pay the least, - some people seem happy with this, and happy with the email from Jon Oringer, and even more incredible happy that he's personally just got millions whilst not having raised commissions for years. No doubt they'll be happy if commissions are cut to appease the new shareholders, so long of course that they get an email saying thanks!
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.
-
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?
-
I'm not doing this for a warm cuddly feeling, I'm doing it for money.
Aren't we all. If anyone gets a warm cuddly feeling from microstock (anymore) I'd like to meet them. They certainly aren't posting around here ;)
-
In the old world there were three agencies, Stones, Image-Bank and Pictor who pretty much had world monopoly, not just on pictures but they also decided which photographers to work with or not. In order to get in, it just wasnt enough to produce good material you had to send them a mile long list of your published work, ad-campaigns, the lot. If you werent a full time pro, you had no chance of getting in.
Many photographers in the end of the 80s got fed up with the whole system and it was all too obvious that"favours" were dished out to some very specific artists. That was the only drawback of them days stock business.
Today, well if you exclusivly depend on photography to feed yourself and your family, the last thing you want is to be forced to compete with thousands of newcomers, amateurs, etc, not their fault but the buyers. Buyers of pictures have always looked to cut corners and skimp prices and thats exactly what feeds the amateurs, nothing else.
This is NOT Jons fault, Bruce started it all and showed it was possible, then along comes Jon and simply outsmarted the rest of the field and if he stays on too long, eventually somneone else will come along and outsmart him. Thats the law of business. Get out while yourer on top and that whats Jon has done.
-
Did I miss something? Why are people saying that Jon's getting out? I saw two videos in this forum from the day of the IPO, where he was stressing "We're in this for the long haul"... or words to that effect.
-
Can I just point out that if all the subscription sites shut their doors we wouldn't see anything like the same volume of sales "on demand". The lower total cost and zero marginal cost (as most won't use their full quota) means that we are selling a lot more licenses at SS with the subs model than we would be without it. Not saying that makes it a good model for us, or the total is necessarily higher one way or the other, but it does mean it isn't as simple as saying we would make the same 3000 sales on demand that we made on subs, just for more money.
Thats the exactly point I tried to make but couldnt word it properly.
-
Did I miss something? Why are people saying that Jon's getting out? I saw two videos in this forum from the day of the IPO, where he was stressing "We're in this for the long haul"... or words to that effect.
Jons passion lies in something completely differant then micro. With many hundered million bucks, would you stay on and get burnt out?
Sometimes we have to read between the lines.
-
I prefer to read my sig. ;D
-
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html)
Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url])
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.
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url])
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!
-
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-81p1.html[/url])
Is this Jon's Port? Are you sure?
Yep. JEO is Jon's intials (Jonathan E Oringer).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
LOL
-
...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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
People 7 years on the site, with massive portfolios still reporting BMEs
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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.
-
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 ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/[/url])) 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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=PollResults)
Both iStock and Shutterstock did very well last month, Shutterstock reaching an avg of over 500!
-
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! ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
But DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS; image prices at all 3 agencies are roughly similar. The main reason that there is a difference in RPD between them is their success or otherwise in selling subscriptions. SS is obviously the clear winner in that regard presumeably because buyers who require a subscription prefer their product/service over that of DT or FT. As it happens both DT and FT are actually cheaper than SS for long-term subscriptions and of course they both pay us less per sub-sale than SS. You can't knock SS for their success over the competition.
However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.
I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.
The fact of the matter is that, even if you were to remove all sub sales, SS would still be my biggest selling agency for single-image sales. Single-image sales is where almost all the growth has been generated over the last couple of years and fortunately that shows no sign of slowing down.
Btw, SS are often 'credited' on MSG (or 'blamed' if you prefer) for having invented the sub model. They didn't. There were several other sub-only agencies at the time however they invariably had wholly-owned content. SS just happened to be the first sub-only agency to open their doors to outside photographers. The huge risk Oringer took in doing so, by paying commissions, meant he could have lost money on every subscription if the customer downloaded anything like their full entitlement.
-
But DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS; image prices at all 3 agencies are roughly similar. The main reason that there is a difference in RPD between them is their success or otherwise in selling subscriptions. SS is obviously the clear winner in that regard presumeably because buyers who require a subscription prefer their product/service over that of DT or FT. As it happens both DT and FT are actually cheaper than SS for long-term subscriptions and of course they both pay us less per sub-sale than SS. You can't knock SS for their success over the competition.
You're right DT & FT aren't more expensive than SS, and yet by your own admittance your RPD is higher there, as you said it's because they don't push to sell subs as much as SS, and you think SS selling more subs is a good thing!
However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.
I haven't seen many others saying the same and it certainly isn't like that for me and nothing to indicate it will be, but believe me I would love to sell nothing but single image sales at SS, so subs are bad now then?
I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.
I don't doubt it, shame though because iS would have paid you more.
The fact of the matter is that, even if you were to remove all sub sales, SS would still be my biggest selling agency for single-image sales. Single-image sales is where almost all the growth has been generated over the last couple of years and fortunately that shows no sign of slowing down.
So subs are bad now ;)
Btw, SS are often 'credited' on MSG (or 'blamed' if you prefer) for having invented the sub model. They didn't. There were several other sub-only agencies at the time however they invariably had wholly-owned content. SS just happened to be the first sub-only agency to open their doors to outside photographers. The huge risk Oringer took in doing so, by paying commissions, meant he could have lost money on every subscription if the customer downloaded anything like their full entitlement.
I know, there were also the 'CD collections' which were like subs on a disc, all Oringer did was copy two ideas, sell loads of images in one package (which he nicked from the trads) and sell them dirt cheap (which he nicked from Bruce), I guess he got the idea of paying the least amount possible to the creators himself, but in fairness he was targeting those who couldn't sell elsewhere with the 'upload the contents of your hard drive' campaign. To this day you'd be hard pushed to find anyone with a larger or even similar size portfolio on other sites as they do on SS and I'll hazard a guess there's a large amount of people who only sell on SS because of quality reasons.
I know you like SS because they nett you the largest monthly income, there's nothing wrong with that, and yes they're extremely successful in doing what they do (mostly thanks to iS giving them customers no doubt) which is why Jon Oringer has just got all that cash, all I ask is that you remove the blinkers every once in a while and see them for what they are which is a business intent on making as much profit from us as possible, which is exactly the same as iS although you get more insults there.
-
...but in fairness he was targeting those who couldn't sell elsewhere with the 'upload the contents of your hard drive' campaign. To this day you'd be hard pushed to find anyone with a larger or even similar size portfolio on other sites as they do on SS and I'll hazard a guess there's a large amount of people who only sell on SS because of quality reasons.
Before there's a mad rush, I understand the quality requirements at SS have risen sharply, like on other agencies, as there have been reports here of people becoming independent and not getting a proportion of their iStock photos accepted on SS, whereas in the past, the vice was usually versa. Of course, there are lots of older photos on iStock, including some of mine, which no doubt would not get accepted nowadays.
-
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.
It is interesting to hear people say istock cut commissions. Did they? For everyone? Or just people who weren't maintaining sales. What was a large sale worth in commissions in 2006? It was $1.00 now a large vetta pays $28.
Istock opened stock photography to the little guy. Try getting into rm even today! SS took the price down to a new low. Let's see I am going to crate a lower priced business model than subscription and call it "dickedover" for every 100 photos the buyer downloads they pay for 1 photo. Now there is a large membership fee that the photographer does not get and that my site will keep. But you will get your work "out there". In 8 years I will be praised for selling this thing for $400 million. I don't understand giving your work away so that you are not screwed over by an all too powerful high paying site.
-
... a large vetta pays $28.
They definitely cut the commissions for all exclusives on ELs, and I thought on Vettas too (maybe also Agency?).
This is talk about cutting commission percentages, which they did to all exclusives - there was a 10% bonus on ELs.
A Large Vetta doesn't pay $28 to all. It depends on what percentage they're on and also on how small the value of the credit bundle of the buyers was. Earlier this year, I got $12 for a 75credit EL, at 30%. A large credit value Vetta could even be a fair bit higher than $28 to the one or two contributors who are on 45%.
You also ask if they "just" cut commission on those who weren't maintaining sales, as though reneging on a long standing payout scheme was 'trivial'. You forget how they encouraged people to submit multiple media types, then split RCs on them, meaning people might have 'just missed' a higher commission over two or more media. Nasty trick, even if they were thereby forced (reluctantly, after a week or two) to concede that by doing that, it was only fair to allow contributors to be exclusive or independent on different media.
-
However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.
I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.
I just checked my numbers and I am seeing the same - I've made more just on ODs at SS so far this month than total earnings at DT and FT combined, and I already have a BME at FT. It's also more than at iS, although not more than iS + DT + FT. The past two months I was averaging an OD about every 20 sales at SS - way fewer than usual - but so far this month it is one out of every 7 so I hope it continues.
-
... a large vetta pays $28.
They definitely cut the commissions for all exclusives on ELs, and I thought on Vettas too (maybe also Agency?).
Also it turns out that they've never been paying us the stated commission on non-dollar sales, whereas they've been doing a double ream; and when caught, they slyly changed the ASA to allow it.
To be fair, that wasn't technically a commission cut. It was a commission we thought we were getting according to the old ASA, but weren't. So, a scam.
-
... a large vetta pays $28.
They definitely cut the commissions for all exclusives on ELs, and I thought on Vettas too (maybe also Agency?).
Also it turns out that they've never been paying us the stated commission on non-dollar sales, whereas they've been doing a double ream; and when caught, they slyly changed the ASA to allow it.
To be fair, that wasn't technically a commission cut. It was a commission we thought we were getting according to the old ASA, but weren't. So, a scam.
So it was a down and out con?
-
It is interesting to hear people say istock cut commissions. Did they? For everyone? Or just people who weren't maintaining sales.
They did. For everyone. Every independent used to receive 20%. Now all have seen their rate cut anywhere from 5 to 25% (to between 19 and 15% respectively). My rate dropped to 16%; next year I expect it to fall to the minimum. Yes, there may be a small handful of independents who held on to 20%, but they represent a small fraction of 1%. Everybody else got screwed.
The situation is more complicated with exclusives. Some of them may have moved up, although I suspect most moved down. And I'm only talking percentages of iStock's revenue from our/their sales. iStock raised prices, which may increase revenue for a few, even as iStock's revenue increases even faster. But royalty rates were cut to the bone.
-
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.
I used to have RPD in my spreadsheet but then I thought what's the point? The number has little to do with overall earnings and that's what pays my bills (almost). I think the main reason why Jon is now a multi millionaire is because over the past few years istock has lost a lot of its buyers and it looks like most of them went to SS. It's impossible to know if we are better or worse off. Istock cut commission percentages and its harder to compete with their exclusives. The fact is that buyers download more with SS subs, that's really what makes RPD meaningless. Would you rather 3 x $0.38 or 1 x $1?
Overall earnings have gone down for a lot of us but is that because of the worldwide economic downturn, or the big increase in competition, or the commission cuts and the complete incompetence of some sites? I wouldn't blame it all on a low RPD.
-
Yes, there may be a small handful of independents who held on to 20%, but they represent a small fraction of 1%. Everybody else got screwed.
Generally believed to be only 1 indie who held on to 20%. Yu-know-who.
-
I used to have RPD in my spreadsheet but then I thought what's the point? The number has little to do with overall earnings and that's what pays my bills (almost). I think the main reason why Jon is now a multi millionaire is because over the past few years istock has lost a lot of its buyers and it looks like most of them went to SS. It's impossible to know if we are better or worse off. Istock cut commission percentages and its harder to compete with their exclusives. The fact is that buyers download more with SS subs, that's really what makes RPD meaningless. Would you rather 3 x $0.38 or 1 x $1?
Overall earnings have gone down for a lot of us but is that because of the worldwide economic downturn, or the big increase in competition, or the commission cuts and the complete incompetence of some sites? I wouldn't blame it all on a low RPD.
To a certain extent, you are right. You can't change RPD at a particular agency, so it doesn't really affect your bottom line. On the other hand, it really determines the viability of an agency or the industry in general.
It's the reason I'm so tough on SS. After several years of looking at my numbers, I determined that I was never going to sell the volumes necessary to make what I wanted there. If anything, it was getting harder just to maintain my current volumes. So, I decided to focus on more profitable agencies that had the potential to actually grow into what I wanted.
If you look at your numbers, and everything looks great and is growing. Then, you should definitely continue what you are doing. But, if you are like me (which I assume many people are), you know that you won't ever have the type of popular images that are going to sell thousands of times a month to make the $.50-$.70 RPD a profitable operation.
I can, however, sell hundreds of images a month. So, I funnel all my new images to higher RPD sites in an attempt to increase my income. I just can't afford to keep supporting sites like SS that are never going to work for me.
-
cthoman, you nailed it. The SS formula really only works for images that are either simple and cheap to produce, or will sell a very large number of times. Niche material is out in the cold, and represents money left on the table because of a simplistic one-size-fits-all business model and pricing structure.
-
cthoman, you nailed it. The SS formula really only works for images that are either simple and cheap to produce, or will sell a very large number of times. Niche material is out in the cold, and represents money left on the table because of a simplistic one-size-fits-all business model and pricing structure.
Er ... isn't that pretty much the exact formula for successful microstock everywhere? Funny that. SS has stuck with the original formula of all images available at the same cheap price and it's proving very successful. Who'd have thought that could work (for both the agency and realistic contributors)?
-
It is interesting to hear people say istock cut commissions. Did they? For everyone? Or just people who weren't maintaining sales. ...
Yes, they did. Vetta/Agency royalties used to be the same percentage as for other sales. They upped the Vetta/Agency prices and cut the royalty rates for exclusives across the board. And, as pointed out by Liz, they removed the 10% exclusive bonus.
And as far as that snide remark about people who weren't maintaining sales, the only way for an indie to keep a 20% royalty rate was to have over a million RCs. I think only Yuri got to keep 20%. So yes, they cut indie royalties for everyone but Yuri.
-
0
-
And as far as that snide remark about people who weren't maintaining sales, the only way for an indie to keep a 20% royalty rate was to have over a million RCs. I think only Yuri got to keep 20%. So yes, they cut indie royalties for everyone but Yuri.
Yep. My sales maintained very well that first year of the royalty credit fiasco, and I still got stuck at 19%. Of course now that sales have plummeted across the board for pretty much everyone on IS, a lot of us are going to go down a level or more.
It's unreasonable to blame a failure to "maintain sales" on contributors when the site has been barely functional for months.
-
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.
If you feel confident enough to call "SS bashers" to the people that don't share your point of view on SS, I think you won't matter being called "SS woo-yayer", in the best tradition of what was said on IS contributors time ago. Now, there are a lot of SS woo-yayers... bot don't worry, it was allowed an applauded to make fun of IS woo-yayers, but being a SS woo-yayer is a serious and respectable thing.
Abut SS being a subs site... It's a fact that it was a subs site for many years, it is understable that some people see this agency in that way. Now you have some indivividual sales or ELS? Good for you and for SS. But, as far as I know (for friends that have portfolios there) the majority of sales are sub, at 0.35 or whatever any size. Maybe in your case is different.
-
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.
If you feel confident enough to call "SS bashers" to the people that don't share your point of view on SS, I think you won't matter being called "SS woo-yayer", in the best tradition of what was said on IS contributors time ago. Now, there are a lot of SS woo-yayers... bot don't worry, it was allowed an applauded to make fun of IS woo-yayers, but being a SS woo-yayer is a serious and respectable thing.
Abut SS being a subs site... It's a fact that it was a subs site for many years, it is understable that some people see this agency in that way. Now you have some indivividual sales or ELS? Good for you and for SS. But, as far as I know (for friends that have portfolios there) the majority of sales are sub, at 0.35 or whatever any size. Maybe in your case is different.
Not really! for many of us the ODs quite often outsell the subs.
-
@ loop
I'm not sure what confidence has to do with it... but honestly, it makes no difference to me what you call me. I'm just happy with a site that's my top earner and performing better all the time without cutting commissions. I'm not so happy with sites that either perform poorly (although I may still live in hope for them), and I'm somewhat miserable about sites that cut commissions. Nothing 'respectable' or otherwise about it. If SS started screwing me or anyone else and start cutting commissions across the board, I'd be really unhappy with them.
If it's of interest, my numbers are consistently around 50% to 60% PPDs at present.
-
But, as far as I know (for friends that have portfolios there) the majority of sales are sub, at 0.35 or whatever any size. Maybe in your case is different.
So far this month at SS I have made double the earnings on credit sales (not including els) than I have at IS. If you add Els into it then it would be even more. The RPD for credit sales is much higher or me at SS than it is at IS thanks to plenty of sales between 16 and 18$ and also a lot more sub sales than at IS (thinkstock) at 38c each not 25 or whatever we get at the partners.
-
I guess if SS cut prices and commissions until they cornered the entire market, and forced the other agencies out of business entirely, we'd love them even more. Because they would definitely be the "top earner". And we'd heap scorn on all those pathetic loser agencies that couldn't sell anything for us.
-
@ loop
I'm not sure what confidence has to do with it... but honestly, it makes no difference to me what you call me. I'm just happy with a site that's my top earner and performing better all the time without cutting commissions. I'm not so happy with sites that either perform poorly (although I may still live in hope for them), and I'm somewhat miserable about sites that cut commissions. Nothing 'respectable' or otherwise about it. If SS started screwing me or anyone else and start cutting commissions across the board, I'd be really unhappy with them.
If it's of interest, my numbers are consistently around 50% to 60% PPDs at present.
Well, so your numbers are different of those of my friends at SS. It can be, maybe different kinds of portfolios or whatever. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, you get about 2-4 $ for an XXXL OD sale. I get from 16 to 110 $, depending of the collection. At the end, revenue is not just dictated for % of commissions but for selling price too. I don't like sites that cut comissions, but it hurts the same if what they cut --or don't ever up-- are prices.
-
There's some very grouchy iStock exclusives who can't seem to leave this Shutterstock thread alone.
Could the numbing effect of the Kool-Aid be wearing off?
-
Shutterstock Rules !!!
-
Shutterstock Rules !!!
DUDE thanks for sharing!
-
I guess if SS cut prices and commissions until they cornered the entire market, and forced the other agencies out of business entirely, we'd love them even more. Because they would definitely be the "top earner". And we'd heap scorn on all those pathetic loser agencies that couldn't sell anything for us.
When have they cut prices and commissions? They've only raised commissions since I started using them in 2006. And for people that are only interested in RPD, that's gone up over 100%.
-
I guess if SS cut prices and commissions until they cornered the entire market, and forced the other agencies out of business entirely, we'd love them even more. Because they would definitely be the "top earner". And we'd heap scorn on all those pathetic loser agencies that couldn't sell anything for us.
When have they cut prices and commissions? They've only raised commissions since I started using them in 2006. And for people that are only interested in RPD, that's gone up over 100%.
Note that I didn't say they had; just speculated on what would happen if they did. As others have pointed out, they started with extremely low prices and commissions to begin with. Was it so long ago that photographers were outraged at getting less than $1 for a sale?
But think about it. They now control the lion's share of the microstock market; they just did a IPO, and will soon be under enormous pressure to make that stock price go up. It's only logical to expect them to either increase prices, or reduce commissions, or both. Whatever smart marketing or sales ideas they might have had - have no doubt been used already, to position the company for the IPO. I doubt they kept any really big ones in reserve.
My point was that it makes little sense to love SS just because they're your "biggest seller". That's just Stockholm Syndrome. But of course "history is written by the victors" (attributed to Churchill).
-
Stockholm Syndrome??
Read up on that is all I can say
-
SS have cut commissions.
When they first started, they paid 40%. Jon Oringer used that fact as a point of difference with iStock, who at that time paid 20% to everyone.
SS now pay 25-30%.
I like to repeat this occasionally, even though I know it's pointless - people don't want to believe it, so they just block it out.
-
With subscriptions, there are no "commissions" in the sense of a percentage of a sale price - we get a fixed payment when a subscriber downloads an image. The amount is arbitrary and not tied to the subscription price. If SS raises the cost of a subscription, and our per-download payment stays the same, you could say that our "commission" goes down.
-
I agree SS commission percent is a low, but it isn't as low as a few sites like say, IS or FT. The commission percent might have gone down, but they didn't lower the amount you got for a sub sale - maybe more of the buyers were downloading less of their total.
I think I make more at SS for a sub sale than at any other site, so it is in my interest for all sub sales to be at SS. (I might have made more with the DT levels system, but they scrapped that).
I calculated my total RPD at IS for August - the last month it is available - the total is 36.56 per sale - yup - less than what I get for subs sales at SS.
(for the same month my RPD at SS was 85.44)
Now that was an atypical month, so we'll look at July.
IS = 57.5
SS = 68.6
so with the rise of PP sales at IS it is quite clear to me that they are not my best place to sell things.
I think RPD is a bit of a useless statistic unless you are trying to decide where to send business.
-
Interesting thread long read for sure.
I broke video exclusivity with iStock last June. I have been able to earn a few bucks more than I did then but at the cost of a lot of work getting my clips on other sites.
Shutterstock with the IPO is going to grow the video side according to the Oringer interview at Bloomberg. Hope this brings more exposure, customers and growth to this area. It can only go up from here IMO. The uploading process is fantastic and the site performs very good with large previews. They only need to grow the client base on video.
The pay is 30% which is much better than the 17% I was left with at iStock. Hope things improve and not go down the same path of their competitor. I cant avoid thinking that if Bruce had waited a bit more, iStock would have been self sufficient on its own. But different era different circumstances.
I wish Oringer and Shutterstock staff/contributors much success going forward.
-
Interesting thread long read for sure.
I broke video exclusivity with iStock last June. I have been able to earn a few bucks more than I did then but at the cost of a lot of work getting my clips on other sites.
Shutterstock with the IPO is going to grow the video side according to the Oringer interview at Bloomberg. Hope this brings more exposure, customers and growth to this area. It can only go up from here IMO. The uploading process is fantastic and the site performs very good with large previews. They only need to grow the client base on video.
The pay is 30% which is much better than the 17% I was left with at iStock. Hope things improve and not go down the same path of their competitor. I cant avoid thinking that if Bruce had waited a bit more, iStock would have been self sufficient on its own. But different era different circumstances.
I wish Oringer and Shutterstock staff/contributors much success going forward.
Bruce started it all but he was mesmorized by Getty and dollars, well he got 50 mil which is a handy sum but peanuts compared to todays values.
The man had it in the palm of his hand and gave it away.
-
I wonder how many people here would of turned down 50 million? I wouldn't of done, unless running istock was more fun than spending 50 million and I very much doubt that. He might of made much more but how many millions do people need? It would be hard to spend the interest on 50 million, so he's probably worth more now.
-
Well, so your numbers are different of those of my friends at SS. It can be, maybe different kinds of portfolios or whatever. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, you get about 2-4 $ for an XXXL OD sale. I get from 16 to 110 $, depending of the collection. At the end, revenue is not just dictated for % of commissions but for selling price too. I don't like sites that cut comissions, but it hurts the same if what they cut --or don't ever up-- are prices.
It depends on the license. They introduced some new licenses in the past year that are based on percentage of sale rather than a flat rate. IIRC, someone reported here recently that they made $95 on one of the newer license sales. I think it was Gostwyck, but he'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong on that. Several people have reported $75 cuts on a new license also. I haven't had any of those myself yet, but I hope I'll see some before too long.
Congratulations on those $110 sales. They must be great to receive. I'm happy for anyone who does well in this game.
-
Well, so your numbers are different of those of my friends at SS. It can be, maybe different kinds of portfolios or whatever. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, you get about 2-4 $ for an XXXL OD sale. I get from 16 to 110 $, depending of the collection. At the end, revenue is not just dictated for % of commissions but for selling price too. I don't like sites that cut comissions, but it hurts the same if what they cut --or don't ever up-- are prices.
It depends on the license. They introduced some new licenses in the past year that are based on percentage of sale rather than a flat rate. IIRC, someone reported here recently that they made $95 on one of the newer license sales. I think it was Gostwyck, but he'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong on that. Several people have reported $75 cuts on a new license also. I haven't had any of those myself yet, but I hope I'll see some before too long.
Congratulations on those $110 sales. They must be great to receive. I'm happy for anyone who does well in this game.
It doesn't happen very often, but it happens.
By the way, I've read something about those SS 70/95 licenses, but I don't really know what thery are. Is this thing about allowing your portfolio for sensitive use?
-
I wonder how many people here would of turned down 50 million? I wouldn't of done, unless running istock was more fun than spending 50 million and I very much doubt that. He might of made much more but how many millions do people need? It would be hard to spend the interest on 50 million, so he's probably worth more now.
Ofcourse nobody would turn down 50 mil, point was, he was probably very rich before he sold IS and as you say, how much can one spend.
-
Well, so your numbers are different of those of my friends at SS. It can be, maybe different kinds of portfolios or whatever. Even so, if I'm not mistaken, you get about 2-4 $ for an XXXL OD sale. I get from 16 to 110 $, depending of the collection. At the end, revenue is not just dictated for % of commissions but for selling price too. I don't like sites that cut comissions, but it hurts the same if what they cut --or don't ever up-- are prices.
It depends on the license. They introduced some new licenses in the past year that are based on percentage of sale rather than a flat rate. IIRC, someone reported here recently that they made $95 on one of the newer license sales. I think it was Gostwyck, but he'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong on that. Several people have reported $75 cuts on a new license also. I haven't had any of those myself yet, but I hope I'll see some before too long.
Congratulations on those $110 sales. They must be great to receive. I'm happy for anyone who does well in this game.
It doesn't happen very often, but it happens.
By the way, I've read something about those SS 70/95 licenses, but I don't really know what thery are. Is this thing about allowing your portfolio for sensitive use?
I think it is, they are called Single and Other Downloads, SOD. I had one for 70$
-
And as far as that snide remark about people who weren't maintaining sales, the only way for an indie to keep a 20% royalty rate was to have over a million RCs. I think only Yuri got to keep 20%. So yes, they cut indie royalties for everyone but Yuri.
Yep. My sales maintained very well that first year of the royalty credit fiasco, and I still got stuck at 19%. Of course now that sales have plummeted across the board for pretty much everyone on IS, a lot of us are going to go down a level or more.
It's unreasonable to blame a failure to "maintain sales" on contributors when the site has been barely functional for months.
Look, all you independents did was get getty 2.4 billion and then h&f 4.4 billion. Do you really think it was a good long term (more than 2 years) strategy to heavily promote ( mainly yuri and monkey) on istock best match from 2008 - 2011. Why would a company allow prominent shelf space to a non-exclusive files that are available at 10 cents on the dollar a click away. You got played by men who pumped and dumped istock. Why do you think the strategy of promoting independents suddenly stopped. It was bleeding off customers. Sure the price hikes sped up the migration but the short term balance sheet got two groups of owners 4 billion. Now they have a problem. They built up the competition beyond a controlling interest and now the value of their brand is going the wrong way. How will the new group sell for 7 billion in three years at this rate?? Anyone with half a brain new that promoting non exclusives while raising prices was incongruent. But it worked like a 4 billion dollar charm.
-
And as far as that snide remark about people who weren't maintaining sales, the only way for an indie to keep a 20% royalty rate was to have over a million RCs. I think only Yuri got to keep 20%. So yes, they cut indie royalties for everyone but Yuri.
Yep. My sales maintained very well that first year of the royalty credit fiasco, and I still got stuck at 19%. Of course now that sales have plummeted across the board for pretty much everyone on IS, a lot of us are going to go down a level or more.
It's unreasonable to blame a failure to "maintain sales" on contributors when the site has been barely functional for months.
Look, all you independents did was get getty 2.4 billion and then h&f 4.4 billion. Do you really think it was a good long term (more than 2 years) strategy to heavily promote ( mainly yuri and monkey) on istock best match from 2008 - 2011. Why would a company allow prominent shelf space to a non-exclusive files that are available at 10 cents on the dollar a click away. You got played by men who pumped and dumped istock. Why do you think the strategy of promoting independents suddenly stopped. It was bleeding off customers. Sure the price hikes sped up the migration but the short term balance sheet got two groups of owners 4 billion. Now they have a problem. They built up the competition beyond a controlling interest and now the value of their brand is going the wrong way. How will the new group sell for 7 billion in three years at this rate?? Anyone with half a brain new that promoting non exclusives while raising prices was incongruent. But it worked like a 4 billion dollar charm.
Sure we got played, show me any business that doesnt play its members or employees. Banks play their customers every day.
However you have to be extra, extra stupid to give them carte-blanche to play you, by signing up for exclusivity. Next step would be the nut house.