From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 09:54

Quote from: Tror on February 22, 2013, 09:34

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 06:56

Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 09:54

Quote from: Tror on February 22, 2013, 09:34

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 06:56

Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 12:01

Quote from: Mantis on February 22, 2013, 11:03

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 09:54

Quote from: Tror on February 22, 2013, 09:34

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 06:56

Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

The current economic climate cannot be so bad when they are able to raise profit every quarter...

Quote from: Travelling-light on February 22, 2013, 10:55

Quote from: jsnover on February 22, 2013, 10:40

From my perspective, all hope for long term good things for contributors from SS ended when they sent out the e-mail about Bigstock subscriptions and the ridiculous levels of annual sales needed to get the top level of royalties.

I think it's only a matter of when, not if, that royalty schedule is applied to sales at SS. That sort of scheme cuts SS's costs (which increases their profit) and favors the factory producers - Yuri, Monkey Business Images, etc.

There is no way, even if SS doubled their business and I stepped up production  significantly (I do this part time), I would keep my 38 cents per sub download and more importantly the higher payouts on OD and Single image sales.

So I'm glad they had a good fourth quarter, but it no longer seems to have anything to do with my prosperity there.

It could be that they are the only ones they want to keep. I wouldn't be surprised if those contributors hardly need to be inspected, so smaller players are probably more expensive for them. If smaller contributors are driven out they can reduce their numbers of inspectors and save more money.
In the end, it could be that only the factories will find micro worthwhile, and the rest of us will have to find a new home.
Where's KonaHawaii?

Oh come on __ do the numbers. Yuri, MB and all the 'factories' have barely 200K images between them. They don't even represent 1% of the library.

Quote from: Tror on February 22, 2013, 12:36

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 22, 2013, 12:20

Why would increase contibutor payout if contributors are praising you beyond reproach and the inspection queues are humming.  I would be tempted to do the opposite.  There is a strong need to reward shareholders.

Exactly! I fail to understand why Contributors here defend whatever Agency against their own interests. I mean, it is not like we are able to ruin a Agency by our greed lol. But we have to take care first of our own priorities, then worry about the others....

Personally, I'm not defending anything, I'm just saying what I think the reality is. And it's unreal to imagine any site will punish its owners by reducing profits to reward contributors when there is no apparent need to do so.  You seem to agree with that but you also seem to think that shouting that we want more on a forum is going to make a difference, which it isn't.

Quote from: Mantis on February 22, 2013, 11:03

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 09:54

Quote from: Tror on February 22, 2013, 09:34

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2013, 06:56

Let's be clear, a pay rise for us means a price rise for the buyers.

If you vote for a pay rise then you need to be sure that increasing the subscription rate is something that the market will tolerate, without buyers heading off to TS or BS or elsewhere.

Not necessarily. A pay raise would mean they make less Profit. They would only have to raise prices if they would want to keep the same or more profit numbers technically. They would only be forced to raise prices if they would make no profit.

Get real, how do you think the shareholders' meeting would go when they announce that profits are down because they decided to pay artists more without changing the prices?

At least where I work we do give raises out annually and we are also publicly traded. However, we strive to find ways to become more productive internally in ways that hit the p&l.  I am in no way connected to SS but there are always ways to conduct lean assessments of an organization to identify waste, remove it and redeploy process. Raises aren't JUST about increases for contributors=increases for buyers. There is a middle component missing in this dialog....productivity, growth strategies, etc.

Your confusing being employed with being a supplier. SS may well give its employees annual pay rises etc., but suppliers are not employees, the relationship is quite different.

Obviously, I'd like more as much as the next person but I have some doubts about it being feasible in the current economic climate (since the reality is pay rise = price rise) and I agree with jsnover's assessment that Bigstock is pointing to the shape of things to come.

I doubt IS got rid of Sean without a thought.