Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40376 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #100 on:** October 17, 2012, 03:37 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 02:45

Quote from: sharpshot on October 17, 2012, 02:23
Easy to understand but impossible in reality. It would be nice if we all left the lower paying sites and the buyers moved with us and bought as many images on sites that charge more and pay us more. That's not going to happen. Even if it did, we might end up on 1% commission and earning less than we do now.

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

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

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.

RT · « **Reply #101 on:** October 17, 2012, 03:44 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 17, 2012, 03:37

.........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

RT · « **Reply #102 on:** October 17, 2012, 03:51 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 17, 2012, 02:54

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #103 on:** October 17, 2012, 04:06 »

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #104 on:** October 17, 2012, 04:16 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 03:44

Quote from: sharpshot on October 17, 2012, 03:37
.........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.

RT · « **Reply #105 on:** October 17, 2012, 04:57 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 17, 2012, 04:16

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 03:44
Quote from: sharpshot on October 17, 2012, 03:37
.........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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #106 on:** October 17, 2012, 05:07 »

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.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #107 on:** October 17, 2012, 05:09 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 03:51

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 17, 2012, 02:54
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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #108 on:** October 17, 2012, 05:15 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 16, 2012, 18:33

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.

RT · « **Reply #109 on:** October 17, 2012, 05:47 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 17, 2012, 05:09

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!

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #110 on:** October 17, 2012, 06:02 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 05:47

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 17, 2012, 05:09
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.

heywoody · « **Reply #111 on:** October 17, 2012, 06:39 »

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

dirkr · « **Reply #112 on:** October 17, 2012, 07:38 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 02:31

Quote from: dirkr on October 16, 2012, 17:19
You're right. But "the place that pays you most" is not the place that has the highest RPD, but the place that pays the highest royalty percentage (because the number of images sold is not only a function of the number of images needed, but even more a function of available budget).
Percentages mean nothing, RPD is the key factor along with sales quantity, would you prefer a 30% commission of $1 or 20% of $2?

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).

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 02:31

Quote from: dirkr on October 16, 2012, 17:19
And that's not SS, but certainly not IS and not DT either...

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

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

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...

dirkr · « **Reply #113 on:** October 17, 2012, 07:39 »

Quote from: Microbius on October 17, 2012, 04:06

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...

leaf · « **Reply #114 on:** October 17, 2012, 07:42 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 17, 2012, 05:09

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 03:51
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 17, 2012, 02:54
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.

RT · « **Reply #115 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:12 »

Quote from: Microbius on October 17, 2012, 04:06

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!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #116 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:30 »

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

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

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

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

stockastic · « **Reply #117 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 17, 2012, 05:15

Quote from: stockastic on October 16, 2012, 18:33
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #118 on:** October 17, 2012, 11:13 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 10:12

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.

RT · « **Reply #119 on:** October 17, 2012, 11:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 17, 2012, 11:13

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

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

lisafx · « **Reply #120 on:** October 17, 2012, 11:27 »

Quote from: RT on October 17, 2012, 02:18

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

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #121 on:** October 17, 2012, 12:05 »

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #122 on:** October 17, 2012, 12:08 »

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.

Poncke · « **Reply #123 on:** October 17, 2012, 12:18 »

Quote from: Microbius on October 17, 2012, 04:06

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.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #124 on:** October 17, 2012, 12:22 »

Quote from: rubyroo on October 17, 2012, 12:08

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jon Oringer just sent me an e-mail... (Read 40376 times)

sharpshot

RT

RT

Microbius

rubyroo

RT

rubyroo

ClaridgeJ

ShadySue

RT

ClaridgeJ

heywoody

dirkr

dirkr

leaf

RT

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

gostwyck

RT

lisafx

ClaridgeJ

rubyroo

Poncke

ClaridgeJ

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors