MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Jo Ann Snover on January 28, 2016, 12:41
-
The other thread on SS's royalty cut has gotten buried in a pile of off topic p*ssing contests, so I thought I'd start something on what action we can take if we don't like SS's recent cash grab.
This morning I opted out of ELs
Go to the contributor (submit...) home page and Account Settings is under your name - top right, between the earnings menu and the language drop down.
I get a few ELs every month, so this will cost me, but after getting my first EL at the "improved" rates earlier in the week - and losing $7.61 on the deal - I'm frustrated enough to take the risk.
Opting out of ELs doesn't do anything to change SOD options, so the larger corporations who've done a custom deal keep on as before.
Some people have said that they get so few ELs after the standard license print run was raised to 500K (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-changes-shutterstocks-license-terms-and-payment-options) that it doesn't matter about the cut.
I'd argue that if you aren't getting a lot of ELs, it makes it even easier to opt out as you won't have to spend much to send a message to SS that they can't cut royalties to contributors without consequences.
The argument that they're making this change to increase EL volumes fails on two levels:
1. They're just cutting contributor royalties (most severely for the lower-tier contributors; this is where they hope that higher tier contributors will quietly accept the change as they don't lose all that much). Buyers are still paying the same prices
2. Even if they do cut prices, you don't buy more ELs because they got cheap. If you're not doing a long print run or selling mugs/T shirts/prints etc, then you don't buy an EL regardless of the price. If they think they're losing business to a rival site when an EL is needed, then this is just a price war and contributors can't possibly win if sites start cutting prices to try and swipe business from a competitor
It's important to remember that high price extended/enhanced licenses are just gravy to stock agencies. They need to be compensated for their costs to host the site, inspect the incoming work, market the agency to buyers, process payments, etc. But to take the same percentage from the extra license terms as they do from the base license is disgraceful - the agency should pay a higher percentage as they have no additional costs associated with it (I think iStock used to when they started ELs; Stocksy pays 75% on ELs versus 50% on regular license sales)
I realize that SS is now focused on keeping Wall St analysts happy - they want to see profit growth and increasing their take on what the buyer pays is one way for them to do that - but they can't just forget about contributors.
They can boost the collection numbers with vast wastelands of marijuana pictures (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest) or near-duplicate icons (http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=802546&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest) but I doubt those matter much to buyers in the long run.
Paul Brennan should get a KK Thompson (money isn't what makes you happy) hall of fame award for this: "We are your partners and our job is to work tirelessly to serve you and grow our marketplace together."
If SS really wants to serve contributors, how about adding 10% to the tier percentages for EL sales? 30% to 40% for ELs versus 20% to 30% for all other non-sub sales.
-
I would prefer not to get less than $28 for an EL, so I just opted out of Enhanced licenses on Shutterstock! :D
-
I'm out !
-
I was out before them. Sorry, but if there has to be a p*ssing contest to get people engaged it might as well be on topic.
-
I'm out. We need to not only opt out, but also send
them an email telling them why.
I doubt that they care, but if enough of us do it,
it might make them reconsider the next cash-grab before they do it.
-
Opting out is good, but better yet do not upload any new content until they reverse this. Plus send them an email telling what you have done and why.
-
out of this
-
Opt out. I think we need more public relations. The buyers should know that SS is taking more from us without giving somthing to the buyers. 8)
-
It's actually all irrelevant to me, because I gave up on microstock over a year ago and quit uploading. But - doesn't SS have some sort of "Contributor Relations" person - whose job would be to give out the bad news, recite the official corporate spin, and listen to the angry responses from contributors? And maybe even respond?
-
I am out.
-
It's actually all irrelevant to me, because I gave up on microstock over a year ago and quit uploading. But - doesn't SS have some sort of "Contributor Relations" person - whose job would be to give out the bad news, recite the spin, and listen to the angry responses from contributors? And maybe even respond?
Some other character posted the announcement on the forum and it looks like the forum moderator is ignoring it as he is posting in other threads and leaving that one alone. No response from emails either, anybody would think they had taken on all the IS staff.
-
I'm totally against this royalty cut. I got 2-3 ELs per months in last 6 months.
Could someone provide a comparison between enhanced licenses provided by major agencies (SS, FT, IS, 123RF, etc) and the royalties they pay? I guess SS still pays more than some other agencies for ELs, but I might be wrong. If so, we have to opt out from ELs from those low paying agencies as well (or simply stop submitting them). Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense (for me).
-
Done! No more ELs for me either.
-
Opted Out.
-
Good Luck.
-
But - doesn't SS have some sort of "Contributor Relations" person - whose job would be to give out the bad news, recite the official corporate spin, and listen to the angry responses from contributors? And maybe even respond?
Nah.
-
Could someone provide a comparison between enhanced licenses provided by major agencies (SS, FT, IS, 123RF, etc) and the royalties they pay?
I don't have one already made up, and you could do the research as easily as anyone else if you want to make a chart. It's hard to make apples to apples comparisons though.
For example, 123rf splits out different rights (as does DT) so they have limited, print and comprehensive ELs. The comprehensive EL netted me $37.35 last year for the 100 credit purchase (exact amount will vary depending on buyer's purchase price; I found one a few months before that netting $36.00).
DT's extended license royalties are priced differently based on image level as well. But when you consider that their rights are sold à la carte as opposed to one bundled set at SS, DT's royalties of up to $17 at level 0 and $30 at level 5 are greater than SS. I can't remember the last time I got an EL at DT though.
-
Well, 20 contributors (here) will opt out.
But 1 million will not.
SS doesn't care…
So, what it will change?
If we want to get a real effect we have to find other ways to touch more (and more) people.
-
I am not opting out, my enhanced licenses are so rare that I would like to first see if there is an improvement in sales. If there is no improvement, then I will look at the money I am getting and decide if a protest on something that rarely ever happens is that important for me.
I understand if people are getting daily or weekly enhanced licenses that a significant part of your income is affected, but in my case these are so rare, that maybe now it will get better.
It is also not a sneaky underhanded deal like the dollar photo club or the Getty google deal. with the rarity of these sales, I simply don´t feel strongly affected by these changes.
But the opt out is there to make everyone comfortable, so Shutterstock has a built in option to keep control how your files are licensed.
-
Yes we need a nice shitstorm via socialmedia in the meantime we can click SS Google Adwords advertising away...
-
Good Luck.
your a front runner when it comes to complaining about ss and taking action, here is action, and you wish them good luck instead of joining? my my
-
Good Luck.
your a front runner when it comes to complaining about ss and taking action, here is action, and you wish them good luck instead of joining? my my
I think that Laurin has very more serious problems than to opt out now…
-
I will not opt out, it was a good change for some of us. Before I had +/- one EL a week and 4 last days got me 4 ELs $28 $28,50 $17,93 $18,88. You do the maths, I prefer to take photos.
-
Can't help thinking ELs were getting scarce for SS so they had to do something....I can't work out exactly what they have done though ;-). Are they cheaper for buyers?
-
if they were getting scarse then surely raising the usage limit to 500k for standard licences didnt help
-
spamowanka, how can you be content with missing out on 20 dollar?
-
I will not opt out, it was a good change for some of us. Before I had +/- one EL a week and 4 last days got me 4 ELs $28 $28,50 $17,93 $18,88. You do the maths, I prefer to take photos.
This is purely a random thing. Prices of EL packages haven't been changed yet (?). So, increase in sales you see is not due to royalty cut.
You do the maths, you already lost $18.69 my friend.
-
In my opinion is better to get $93 a week for ELs with missing $20 than getting $28 a week without $20 missing.
-
you are missing the point, you would have gotten 112 dollar
-
In my opinion is better to get $93 a week for ELs with missing $20 than getting $28 a week without $20 missing.
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.
-
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.
In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.
So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.
-
If this is a random thing as you suggest I will update you about my missing $$ in a few weeks.
-
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.
In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.
So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.
But SS haven't done that yet. So, how can it explain already increased downloads that spamowanka gets?
-
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.
In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.
So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.
It was my understanding that the price for an EL to the buyer wasnt changing, only contributors were getting the shaft (again). Did i misunderstand?
-
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.
In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.
So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.
It was my understanding that the price for an EL to the buyer wasnt changing, only contributors were getting the shaft (again). Did i misunderstand?
Thats the trouble with corporate goobledegook I don't understand either but reduced cost to customers is implied
-
OK, I'm too stupid to understand the connection between royalty cut and increased downloads.
In the past, Shutterstock has paid out a flat $28. Now they pay out a percentage. As a result, they now have no problems offering ELs to customers at much lower prices than before. It wouldn't have paid off for them selling ELs for $60 when they had to pay $28 in royalties, now they only have to pay $12-$18.
So obviously their hope is that with discounts they can get more of the buyers (back) that are using images to print post cards or calendars for resale who haven't been willing to pay $80-$100 per image for some time and get those image cheaper elsewhere.
But SS haven't done that yet. So, how can it explain already increased downloads that spamowanka gets?
Random chance.
-
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit. And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.
-
I am not opting out, my enhanced licenses are so rare that I would like to first see if there is an improvement in sales. If there is no improvement, then I will look at the money I am getting and decide if a protest on something that rarely ever happens is that important for me.
I understand if people are getting daily or weekly enhanced licenses that a significant part of your income is affected, but in my case these are so rare, that maybe now it will get better.
It is also not a sneaky underhanded deal like the dollar photo club or the Getty google deal. with the rarity of these sales, I simply don´t feel strongly affected by these changes.
But the opt out is there to make everyone comfortable, so Shutterstock has a built in option to keep control how your files are licensed.
I opted out, but I am going to opt back in. Reasons:
1. I am all for trying to get agencies to listen, but with the millions of contributors, and with SS now being controlled by investors, even 1000 contributors opting out will not change their minds when it comes to $$$. They are concerned with their bottom line, not ours. I believe the watermark complaints worked because it didn't directly involve $$. There just aren't ever enough contributors (or the top selling contributors) jumping into the protest to make it work.
2. I am in the same situation as cobalt. I only sold a few last year, and they were towards the end of the year. I would like to see if this brings more EL sales (which I doubt it will, for reasons jsnover mentioned.) And I would also like to see just how much $ they drop (I am in the top tier).
If my cut is substantially lower than before, I will be opting out again. If I don't get any ELs, then it won't matter one way or another. Which it doesn't to SS anyway.
-
complaining because the el passed form 28 to 18 when u sell most of the photos and earn 0,25?
i mean if you wanted to really make something you should ditch micro stock, and try to earn serious money with quality work....but it's very difficult this way.
personally i accept everything they give me for my collection, i upload only garbage photos to every agency, just to make things alive and pull my download, but don't expect nothing, 60 million images...how can you really expect anything from this situation?
-
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit. And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.
third world country photographer, who live where you can live with 4 500 dollar, are saturating all this agency. that's the real big problem....if you want to live with micro you can't do in western world...maybe moving to thailnd or ukraine could be a good business...earning 1200 dollar and living good....and 1200 dollar are still lot of money to be made nowadays for 99% f micro stock photographer. it's 3000 4000 download month...150 day...
-
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit. And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.
third world country photographer, who live where you can live with 4 500 dollar, are saturating all this agency. that's the real big problem....if you want to live with micro you can't do in western world...maybe moving to thailnd or ukraine could be a good business...earning 1200 dollar and living good....and 1200 dollar are still lot of money to be made nowadays for 99% f micro stock photographer. it's 3000 4000 download month...150 day...
You really think to live well in Ukraine with $1200 a month if you are a foreigner? lol
-
Discounting costs us now that we are on a percentage so increased demand would need to be very high for us to profit. And we are at the mercy of currency fluctuations.
third world country photographer, who live where you can live with 4 500 dollar, are saturating all this agency. that's the real big problem....if you want to live with micro you can't do in western world...maybe moving to thailnd or ukraine could be a good business...earning 1200 dollar and living good....and 1200 dollar are still lot of money to be made nowadays for 99% f micro stock photographer. it's 3000 4000 download month...150 day...
You really think to live well in Ukraine with $1200 a month if you are a foreigner? lol
well if you live in ukraine you are not a foreigner anymore:)
i know ukraine pretty well...sure you not live a luxury life but a good live yes....comparision you live like in western country with 4000 euro....i am in ukraine most of year and moving there for summer.....gryvan 28 euro....taxi 1 euro....pizza 3 euro...good restaurant 15 20 euro...rentin is the only thing that cost a bit,...400 600 dollar...but with 1200 dollar good luck renting anything or eating a pizza in western world...leaving aside the cost of shooting...a perfect studio with profoto light? 10 euro or less hour....model? you can stop girl in the street for few photos and some euro and voila you have a model, in ukraine i'd say 50% of people can work as stock model...
also if you can't live as foreigner with 1200 how can people live there earning 200 dollar or 300 like many people do?
1200 dollar: 600 rent apartment with everything included
600 dollar : 18000 gryvna.....pizza in center with taxi from house back...270.....yes i think i can live as foreigner...
and we are talking about kiev the most expensive...go kharkiv or lviv you can live even better.
-
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.
-
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.
everything is referred to the thread...if you sell and earn 0,25 scent per foto complaining because el went from 25 to 18....considring that they went this way cause probably the sold low in the last year, i was used to have 4 5 at month and even more, in the last 8 month 2 El only, is nitpicking in my way.
even complaining is nitpicking...we created all this situation and we must accept everything. photography is worth less than any jobs in the world in these days. it's tremendous to accept but it's the truth
-
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.
everything is referred to the thread...if you sell and earn 0,25 scent per foto complaining because el went from 25 to 18....considring that they went this way cause probably the sold low in the last year, i was used to have 4 5 at month and even more, in the last 8 month 2 El only, is nitpicking in my way.
even complaining is nitpicking...we created all this situation and we must accept everything. photography is worth less than any jobs in the world in these days. it's tremendous to accept but it's the truth
So your answer is to give in and die a little. Thanks for your discouragement, but I get enough of that from directly Shutterstock.
-
Anyway back to the original thread
I ALREADY OPTED OUT ;D plus three other contributors who wish to remain anonymous 8)
-
This is the "Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS" thread, you may find a "how the world works" thread elsewhere if you are not interested.
everything is referred to the thread...if you sell and earn 0,25 scent per foto complaining because el went from 25 to 18....considring that they went this way cause probably the sold low in the last year, i was used to have 4 5 at month and even more, in the last 8 month 2 El only, is nitpicking in my way.
even complaining is nitpicking...we created all this situation and we must accept everything. photography is worth less than any jobs in the world in these days. it's tremendous to accept but it's the truth
So your answer if to give in a die a little. Thanks for your discouragement, but I get enough of that from directly Shutterstock.
any discouragement...when you see an agency accepting 700 thousand images every week, and every other do the same, i think the last problem is the EL at 18...maybe they will sell more EL so instead of earning 0 af 25 they sell 2 at 18 and it's a profit of 36 instead of 0.
the problem is where is going the industry. cobs sold to chinese, macro selling for 0,14 even less than micro, 1000000 of amateur selling photos earning 50 dollar year and diluting the profit for every real photographer....in my opinion the only way to change is really go stocks or minimum a 500 pix stock , at least you reran more than 50 dollar per sale...but the problem is always the same...nobpdy is leaving, cause everybody think :" if leave and the other not i will only lose more".
that's it. my suggestion put the worst photo in micro and try sale rights managed the best. maybe this will improve the situation
-
Anyway back to the original thread
I ALREADY OPTED OUT ;D plus three other contributors who wish to remain anonymous 8)
how much EL you sold last year?
-
You can now stop with this off-topic crap. Where is admin when you need one?
-
(http://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/TNShrouded-n-cloaked.jpg) (http://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Shrouded-n-cloaked.jpg)
-
you are missing the point, you would have gotten 112 dollar
you are missing the point, (maybe) you could have gotten 112 dollar…
Better to have than could have… "Could have" does not pay the bills…
-
You can now stop with this off-topic crap. Where is admin when you need one?
crap?
or crack?
nitpicking 18 vs 25 dollar when most of sales bring 0,33 cents? we should also be serious?
come on. luck that still there is 18 dollar sometimes, who are 54 download at 0,33 cent, to be made.
-
why do all these threads need to be derailed? you start to wonder if they are on a payroll. Tyler could you remove off topic comments please.
-
jonbull you are talking nonsense, but following your logic, why do we have to accept a paycut of 26 subs per EL? i cant even phantom why you would defend the agency over this. your in the wrong playground for that.
-
jonbull you are talking nonsense, but following your logic, why do we have to accept a paycut of 26 subs per EL? i cant even phantom why you would defend the agency over this. your in the wrong playground for that.
why we started to accept 0,25 for photo is the point....if you don't want accept the lost of 7 dollar and you opt out, they will sell other photos not yours and your payroll will be less and less...if every photographer in micro accept to eliminate their account now , the agency will be forced to change everything, but it's impossibile this.
i have any agenda believe me. it's only noisense to opt out because you lose 7 dollar, and probably they discounted the el because they are selling few and few., while you earn 0,33 per sale. if you don't understand this is your problem. i don't rely on micro stock anymore from 4 years, only uploading junk photos, junk for me not for reviewers, and earning some dollars who help buy stuff pay travel and taxes.
-
I opted out.
Today I opted out to make me feel better.
Who knows maybe if many persons do it simultaneously the red light will start blinking in SS office. But the probability is low. But I am sure if we don't even try there is no chance they change enything.
To be honest I think I will opt in in few month...
-
I have opted out for the following reason:
If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)
You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.
This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.
-
I have opted out for the following reason:
If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)
You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.
This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.
Probably explains why I saw earnings drop like a stone this week immediately after the announcement.
>:(
-
I have opted out for the following reason:
If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)
You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.
This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.
i don't understand. what i'm doing is simply not opting out. cause in this kind of market every penny counts. for me real photography is not this. but i understand that fo those who still think they will have a living with micro stock it can be symbolic
-
jonbul, i never signed up for 25 cent downloads, i signed up for 20 cent downloads and 20 dollar els, but that is not the point either, we just got a price cut from an agency that hadnt cut royalties before (except referrals), and you are defending it because we accept 25 cent downloads in the first place. noticing you are talking about 33 cent makes me believe you havent been in the game longer than a year.
-
jonbul, i never signed up for 25 cent downloads, i signed up for 20 cent downloads and 20 dollar els, but that is not the point either, we just got a price cut from an agency that hadnt cut royalties before (except referrals), and you are defending it because we accept 25 cent downloads in the first place. noticing you are talking about 33 cent makes me believe you havent been in the game longer than a year.
sorry i take 0,38 cent per photo maybe i am a leve superior.....i never check...just end of month watch how much i did....as i said in my opinion accepting from beginning micro stock it's clear you accepted a cheap situation who in the long run will bring everything down , and in my opinion even no it's a good situation.
personally i see the el trendy finished in my portfolio and i have 60-80 el years...in 2015 probably less than 20
i'm not defending anything, simply opt out is useless and in my opinion you only lose money, you, better 36 dollar than 0.
-
Just Opt Out Jonbull you know it makes sense ;D
-
Just Opt Out Jonbull you know it makes sense ;D
ahahah no way...i repeat i try to ,milk the cow thill i can...i have more than 10000 photos ready i will upload , i will not even complaint about rejection , is totally useless, i just send all stuff it 's in my hard disk without any interests...my best works photos and energy are aimed at RM, prints, show, assignment and editorial for magazine right now...it looks 4 years but is working...i probably would have earned more with micro in the last 4 years, but for me was mostly boring, and as i said it's a creative nightmare, think and photo like a micro stock only means you are cutting all your creativity to zero.
so no i not opt put, anyway it would be useless i have not a el in the last 4 months.
-
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).
The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.
I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:
"I realize you don’t set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.
It is a shame - I’d like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If you’d like to explain to Paul Brennan that I’d happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps he’d reconsider?"
-
and we are talking about kiev the most expensive...go kharkiv or lviv you can live even better.
i think there is a silver lining in this dark cloud if we are willing to shift with the tide...
eg.
-at least ss gives you the option to out if you do not like the new plan
- everyone has its own comfort level and satisfaction...
no one wants to be so proud as to announce to the world, "hey i am with ss the #1 microstock agency in the world, then to get to respond to the question , "ya, how much you make ???"...
"duhhh, um, 28 to 32 cents each dl !!!" :'(
yes, living in the super metros of the world is getting a bit ridiculous.. whether it is boston or nyc, or vancouver toronto.. or rdj or sampa... or even singapore or taipei or beijing or paris, london, durban, etc..
so we , as most of us are retired, perharps it is time we look to move to ukraine.
and make ukraine the new mecca .
only do it quickly before it gets to expensive, then we will all have to move back to boston or nyc or wherever we came from 8)
what i mean is, we have priced ourselves out of the life we can afford ...
by being unwilling to budge . so jon may hit on something harsh but reality..
if you move, you will be happy with the money you earn as a microstock photographer with ss.
if not, move your portfolio to where you are happy to make ...
either zero with big promises of bigger %age..(everyone with single digit or less than 30% to the right column here below ss)...
or move to the ukraine.
thx mate, it does sound flippant but i am not...
i believe you are right... too many of us are just unwilling to shift like a relic
at stonehenge 8)
-
The other thread on SS's royalty cut has gotten buried in a pile of off topic p*ssing contests, so I thought I'd start something on what action we can take if we don't like SS's recent cash grab.
This morning I opted out of ELs
Go to the contributor (submit...) home page and Account Settings is under your name - top right, between the earnings menu and the language drop down....
Whatever Jo Ann Snover says, I think it is best to do it! :D
I just selected and saved Opt-Out ELs too (easy process). I get a few per year. But I sent them a complaint message too.
Let's tell them they can screw us so they can give their employees Pizza Fridays and gym passes on OUR BACKS. :P
-
BRAVO! ;D
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).
The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.
I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:
"I realize you don’t set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.
It is a shame - I’d like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If you’d like to explain to Paul Brennan that I’d happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps he’d reconsider?"
-
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).
The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.
I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:
"I realize you don’t set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.
It is a shame - I’d like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If you’d like to explain to Paul Brennan that I’d happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps he’d reconsider?"
You should ask them to put the buyer in touch with you to negotiate a price, from which you'd happily pay Shutterstock a 25% commission.
-
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).
The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.
I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:
"I realize you don’t set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.
It is a shame - I’d like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If you’d like to explain to Paul Brennan that I’d happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps he’d reconsider?"
Nice move!
Maybe SS should redesign the EL opt-out button to something like: opt-out if my commission is below $xx, where $xx can be set to $28, or whatever each individual considers acceptable.
-
I received e-mail this morning from someone in "Contributor Success" about a customer request for an enhanced license for one of my images (for $22).
The "issue" is that I have opted out and they were offering to process the sale with my permission.
I told them I was very sorry, but no. My answer, in part, with a link to this thread, was:
"I realize you don’t set policy on contributor royalties at Shutterstock, but I opted out of Enhanced Licenses this week after Shutterstock cut enhanced license royalties for contributors.
It is a shame - I’d like to offer the customer what they want - but I will not be party to the erosion of royalties owed to contributors. If you’d like to explain to Paul Brennan that I’d happily opt back in to Enhanced Licenses if Shutterstock comes up with something more reasonable for contributors, perhaps he’d reconsider?"
Wow
Props to you JoAnn
Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, there are just waaaaayyyyy too many noobs and even old-time contributers who are just going to take whatever comes along and have the "$17 EL sale , better than none" mentality.
I think this may have me seriously consider trying to get into RM sites and living with a few sales, but at least feeling like the work is valued
-
...Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, ...
And it may well be a futile effort, but we'll never know if we don't give it a shot. And in a year (or whenever those who want to wait and see decide this isn't working out) it'll be way too late to make a difference.
I am under no illusions about the importance of one part time contributor to Shutterstock. SS management only give lip service to being concerned with contributor wellbeing - we're a cost to be managed. Investors care even less - we're just a risk factor listed among many as to why their investment could fail.
But there is a minuscule chance if a few of these "no" answers to customers happen together that someone will go talk to Paul Brennan and ask if he realizes what's going on. Or possibly that it'll happen to a larger customer without one of the SOD contracts and they'll call up someone to complain.
Or they may find a marijuana picture to license and be perfectly happy without mine :)
-
...Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, ...
And it may well be a futile effort, but we'll never know if we don't give it a shot. And in a year (or whenever those who want to wait and see decide this isn't working out) it'll be way too late to make a difference.
I am under no illusions about the importance of one part time contributor to Shutterstock. SS management only give lip service to being concerned with contributor wellbeing - we're a cost to be managed. Investors care even less - we're just a risk factor listed among many as to why their investment could fail.
But there is a minuscule chance if a few of these "no" answers to customers happen together that someone will go talk to Paul Brennan and ask if he realizes what's going on. Or possibly that it'll happen to a larger customer without one of the SOD contracts and they'll call up someone to complain.
Or they may find a marijuana picture to license and be perfectly happy without mine :)
And now we know what happens if a buyer wants your image: Shutterstock contacts you about offering an Extended License.
So if we all opted out, Shutterstock would have to pay additional employees to either conduct a search and offer alternative images to buyers or reach out to contributors to make their image available, which means a financial impact for Shutterstock, however small. So I suggest we all opt out and offer to negotiate a the price, with SS getting a 25-30% commission. Turnabout is fair play.
-
...Sadly, though i think this is like trying to fix a leak in hoover dam with gum, ...
And it may well be a futile effort, but we'll never know if we don't give it a shot. And in a year (or whenever those who want to wait and see decide this isn't working out) it'll be way too late to make a difference.
I am under no illusions about the importance of one part time contributor to Shutterstock. SS management only give lip service to being concerned with contributor wellbeing - we're a cost to be managed. Investors care even less - we're just a risk factor listed among many as to why their investment could fail.
But there is a minuscule chance if a few of these "no" answers to customers happen together that someone will go talk to Paul Brennan and ask if he realizes what's going on. Or possibly that it'll happen to a larger customer without one of the SOD contracts and they'll call up someone to complain.
Or they may find a marijuana picture to license and be perfectly happy without mine :)
congrats Jo Ann ,
but what if they are pulling one of those "buy you out" strategy ???
like the auto business buying out the battery cars...
and the tobacco business buying out the researchers on danger of nicotine
a long long time back in the 80-90s
to silence you ??? 8)
like even for months now, i suspect some of the biggest loudest anti-ss activists are actually
the biggest ss inside workers painting a whitewash to "expose the bad apples from the
marijuana" ;)
-
Like others have said, SS is the ultimate subs site. I submit content with the expectation to get less than 40 cents per download. Probably 95% of my sales are subs (didn´t check it, maybe it is 85%, who knows).
Content that I believe is interesting enough to get more money, let's say from 5 dollars to several hundred dollars, will simply not go to SS.
So for me it really is very simple, all the higher licenses are the lucky bonus. They are completely random in which files they hit, I cannot find a pattern and specifically produce only enhanced license content...
Unlike Fotolia, where half my sales are not subs and where I can commit exclusive content.
If higher priced sales were a reliable reality, maybe I would send them other stuff, but for me SS is not stocksy, or Westend, or 500 pix. Or Getty or Corbis..
So until they come up with a higher priced collection and enhanced licenses happen just a few times a year, I see no point in arguing over something that for me doesn´t exist and: is not the reason I am submitting content to them in the first place.
But everyone has a different strategy, for me sorting content by style and expected download price determines what I send where. If I am wrong, I remove it and send it elsewhere.
So yes, for the below 1 dollar per download / but higher volume content, I can easily live with a lower enhanced license sale. And I do believe there is very reasonable opportunity to actually sell more of these licenses.
Content that can command higher prices will always go elsewhere.
I wish you all the best whatever distribution concept you use for your files.
-
Like others have said, SS is the ultimate subs site. I submit content with the expectation to get less than 40 cents per download. Probably 95% of my sales are subs (didn´t check it, maybe it is 85%, who knows).
I just took a look at my all time totals at SS (and I did have 3 years away while I was exclusive, which may have altered things) and if I add up all the non subscription totals it is only about $500 less than I've earned from subscriptions. So although you can't necessarily see those percentages every month, half my income from them is non subscription.
I don't believe that there is anything special about types of images that get ELs or SODs at SS, but it is really hard to know. It probably does make more of a difference when you're at the 30% tier, especially with the SODs, but I think SS used to be a subs site and now is a stock agency trying hard to take business from Getty from corporate clients, using profits from the subs business to keep things going while they try to be the amazon of the stock marketplace.
I realize that everyone's circumstances are different, but I do firmly believe that if you have any concerns about agencies reducing royalties for contributors, you effectively signal that you're OK with that when you let cuts pass with no reaction.
When an agency is dominant, it knows it has the upper hand and can generally get contributors to accept whatever it offers - when you're effectively operating a company town, people don't have to like you to continue doing business with you.
-
I've opted out as well.
-
You are assuming that it is only a reduction with zero chance of more or equal money and that volume will not go up.
If they had just said, from now on we get 12 dollars instead of 28, I would agree with you and maybe consider opting out if enhanced licenses are a significant part of most contributors income, maybe my portfolio is just unlucky. Half of my income? Of course I´ll protest!!
But here, I really don´t see it. Both in volume and money it is negligable.
Actually the photo sales overall have been dissapointing for me, unlike video. But that is a different story.
The other thing is - yes we have had really horrible experiences with other agencies. Does this mean that SS can never change anything in their business model?
They have managed to be scandal free for most of the time and do respond to complaints without banning people, see the watermark issue.
I genuinly believe that a flexible model can earn more money, if it is done well.
So at this point I personally really don´t see enough data for an organized shitstorm.
I might be wrong of course, but I can´t join a fight if I am not convinced.
Sorry :(
-
I tweeted (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/693175338394738688)about today's unfortunate situation of having to say "no" to a customer, and used a hashtag #OptInWhenTheyPayUp as well as #Shutterstock in the tweet
For those who don't do twitter "I said "no" to #Shutterstock customer asking for Enhanced License-opted out after #RoyaltyCut. #OptInWhenTheyPayUp-I'd love to help customer"
-
You are assuming that it is only a reduction with zero chance of more or equal money and that volume will not go up.
If they had just said, from now on we get 12 dollars instead of 28, I would agree with you and maybe consider opting out if enhanced licenses are a significant part of most contributors income, maybe my portfolio is just unlucky. Half of my income? Of course I´ll protest!!
But here, I really don´t see it. Both in volume and money it is negligable.
Actually the photo sales overall have been dissapointing for me, unlike video. But that is a different story.
The other thing is - yes we have had really horrible experiences with other agencies. Does this mean that SS can never change anything in their business model?
They have managed to be scandal free for most of the time and do respond to complaints without banning people, see the watermark issue.
I genuinly believe that a flexible model can earn more money, if it is done well.
So at this point I personally really don´t see enough data for an organized shitstorm.
I might be wrong of course, but I can´t join a fight if I am not convinced.
Sorry :(
What if they do the same with footage? If this goes well for them it's the obvious next step, footage is now the only one out of line with the other media.
-
You are assuming that it is only a reduction with zero chance of more or equal money and that volume will not go up.... Does this mean that SS can never change anything in their business model?
I am not trying to be argumentative, but do want to respond for the sake of those reading not posting.
Enhanced licenses are inherently different from standard licenses - if you don't do the specific activities permitted by an EL but forbidden by the standard license, you don't buy one. It isn't an issue of price in most cases, but not having the need.
And of course SS can change its business model - and it has done that many times over the years. When they introduced the SOD licensing (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/individual-image-licenses-update), I fussed (along with some others) about the lack of transparency in the license terms, but didn't opt out because we were offered a decent percentage of the license (30% for me) and I was willing to accept that until they were caught doing something unfair to contributors, we should give them a chance to pursue this type of business.
It didn't hurt that these licenses were almost all higher priced than existing ones.
I still think they could be more transparent but so far so good and that business has done well for many.
The only possible way SS could hope to increase EL downloads (and I don't think it'd work for the reasons above) is by cutting the price buyers pay which cuts our royalties even further. They haven't said they will reduce prices, so for the moment all they're doing is taking more of the ELs than before - $7.61 from me earlier this week and if I'd have said "yes" to today's request they'd have kept an additional $6.
The other really obnoxious aspect to this initiative was the language used to introduce it - illogical (to simplify the earnings schedule...) (We are your partners and our job is to work tirelessly to serve you and grow our marketplace together.) They way you respect partners is to be straight with them, not drop a bomb in the forums (I never did receive the e-mail) and then ignore all the feedback thereafter.
-
last 10.000 download i did not have EL sold, two years back i have one EL on 1000 DL.
what it really pisses me off, if you change contract you have to contact client and communicate, in this internet area, all commmunication is gone, take or it live it,
that is not standard business model.
-
I agree with the silly way it was communicated, sounds like someone who has no experience with stock contributors was tasked to spin an "exciting" announcement for us on Friday afternoon...
If I wanted to sell more enhanced licenses I would indeed suggest to the customer that this new package "happy stock23" was better than "happy stock22" because it offered 100 enhanced licenses in the package or even a package where all downloads always included enhanced licenses...There are many companies who want to make sure the files they download always have all rights ready, simply because any wrong use would be so costly to correct. This would be a very simple package, more expensive yes, but definitely simpler.
Obviously I am not working in SS sales, but is it unreasonable to think that they did some extensiv testing before making the change?
You are perfectly right to suggest that maybe the only modeling they did was on existing sales data without more marketing or no new happy package, with the sole intention of more money for their shareholders and investors at the expense of the artist.
If this was getty...or the old fotolia...I probably wouldn´t even consider if they really had a plan to increase sales...but since SS has a positive track record, I am ready to believe they really did some tests and do plan to increase sales.
Maybe my trust is misplaced, I just have three years experience with them.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Good luck.
(Eta: with video my current worry is that neither pond5 nor SS are inspecting files in a normal time frame. If my two main agencies need months to bring the product to market...that is a very, very serious problem...)
-
just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.
It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot. And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.
My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.
If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
-
I used to sell EL's every month but they have dried up for me. Don't see the point in opting out, why don't we all just supply the few sites that give us a much better deal, like alamy, Pond5, GLStockImages, FeaturePics and a few others?
Even if shutterstock wanted to back down, I don't think they can now that their mission is to make as much profit as possible to keep their shareholders happy. I was more alarmed when they bought BigStock and lowered commissions, that was a clear indicator that we were going to get squeezed. Why wasn't there more of a protest when they raised prices but didn't give us a raise? That costs us a lot more than lowering our cut on EL's.
Having lost a lot of money by deactivating most of my portfolio with istock, only to see some of the people that complain the most about them here were uploading all they could, I am wary of reducing my earnings potential again. I think its much better to work harder with the good sites, we could give any site that pays 50% a boost if we all got behind them.
-
green machine, exactly
-
Think decs figures will make interesting reading....they still seem to be increasing revenue by 20% per annum. It may be they are struggling to maintain this. The stock market is a roller coaster at the moment and they were always overpriced. So may be cause for concern but not doomed just yet (plus they are sitting on a HUGE pile of $$$$$$)
-
....If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
I think we all know who will be wanting to do that. Perhaps the only hope for us not seeing this go the same way as istock is if SS can go private again with Jon Oringer back in control but that isn't likely.
-
I just opted out too. Sorry I had to wait for Friday to be over just in case :)
I don't get ELs more than once a month, my hands are kinda itchy to opt back in to be honest, but I'm also curious to see where this move would lead us. I wonder if we have a voice if we "scream" together.
Besides, this virtual protest is the closest thing we can do to gathering a crowd in front of SS office with banners and stuff ;D
-
just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.
It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot. And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.
My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.
If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
Very good, well thought summary. There is usually cause & effect and this is certainly a strong possibility.
-
just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.
It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot. And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.
My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.
If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
There a very few investors these days most of them are speculators. The money invested in the hope of gaining a bigger market share of the EL market is our money paid for with a pay cut, an investment with no return for us unless you are on the top tier and in an advantageous currency. The risk has been transferred from the speculators to the contributors, the distribution of profits from the contributors to the speculators to make up for their ridiculous gambling approach to the stock market.
-
....If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
I think we all know who will be wanting to do that. Perhaps the only hope for us not seeing this go the same way as istock is if SS can go private again with Jon Oringer back in control but that isn't likely.
I have absolutely no faith in Jon, after all he is the one person responsible for making the decisions to take venture capitol, offer the SSTK IPO and price the SS product below the competition long term to gain market share. His actions speak louder than any words and he went into this with his eyes wide open as he watched what unfolded at IS.
None of the decisions above have been taken with the intent of protecting our assets or financial interests. Yet with each negative hit to our assets, the apple polishers come out of the woodwork to defend shutterstocks latest downward move as potentially beneficial to the majority.
-
just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.
It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot. And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.
and you can also see it from yet another more realistic perspective
that
the current stock price $28.9
is the actual worth of the stock.
it is much like all stocks and real estate in a metropolis etc,
the perception of worth is always blown out of proportion when the stock is first issued.
vultures , and speculators, and insiders,...
buy up the stocks to artifically give the ordinary investors the impression that the ss stock is worth
70-90 bucks... even 110 bucks if they were allow enough time to pull the wool over their eyes..
but fortunately, they were unable to keep the intrinsic value from showing up itself
to be...
$28.9
if there is any pressure in anything anywhere,
it is the pressure between the shareholders ears
to think they could sustain the period to bullsh*t their way into making a quick profit...
but they can't... because you cannot fool the public all the time..
the same ppl they were trying to fool to make a quick profit
sold out quicker than they did
and now they are asking ss oringer & etc to slice the contributor so they can make a profit
or break even
it's called karma...
the longer ss slice the throats of their contributors
which is their suppliers and more like their farmers to the crop that brings money for those in the "market"place...
instead of cutting the gym , expensive office, perks, etc...
get it, investors in panic ??? karma!!!
-
afterthought...
how ironic that the numbers match....
28 dollar...
28 cents...
sounds familiar??? ;)
-
I opted out. They will screw us into the ground either way, we can choose to take it or we can choose not to. I choose not to.
However, I have to add, I got an EL sale on Dreamstime yesterday. The buyer paid 50 credits and my take was $6.28. Today I got an email from them saying they were taking back $5.26 in refund. In other words Shutterstock has a long way to go before they s u c k on that level.
-
just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.
It seems to me like the CFO is under serious pressure from big investors to massively improve the bottom line (ie cut costs increase profits) and stop the rot. And somewhere down the chain this Brennan person was tasked with sugar coating a cost cut to us.
and you can also see it from yet another more realistic perspective
that
the current stock price $28.9
is the actual worth of the stock.
it is much like all stocks and real estate in a metropolis etc,
the perception of worth is always blown out of proportion when the stock is first issued.
And you can see it from an even more realistic perspective.
The actual "worth" of the stock accurately represents the actual "worth" of the company and therefore the images within.
Maybe now that virtually everyone has a camera on their phone and access to professional quality gear and training is so easily available, the good 'ol days of making a 6 figure salary from your images in a crowd sourced, oversupplied microstock framework are over. Add an economic environment where people maybe aren't splashing the csh around on images that they "might" need and this certainly is just a conspiracy to fleece contributors. Isn't it? ??? ???
Maybe it is time that we all just fill our portfolios with knockoff pot images and be done with it.
-
just to offer a slightly different perspective on this debate:-
the current stock price is $28.9
a year ago it was $70
two years ago it was $99
from what I can see no dividend was paid out over the last 12 months, 2 billion dollars have been wiped off the value of the company in 24 months that's an average loss of about $83 million a month. The trend looks very bad.
Just a clarification, SS stock was never intended to pay a dividend to investors. The sole reason for investing was anticipated stock value gain. As the stock price rose, you could cash out for a profit or hang in there for anticipated further appreciation. I bought in to SS stock shortly after it first became available to the public. As it's price rose it's value to me, based on what I perceived as an unrealistic P/E ratio, became untenable. Thus I sold my interest just short of $50 per share and made a tidy short-term profit. I then watched as the share price continued to rise to well over $100 per share and knew this was totally unsustainable. Sure enough, it finally began to fall to a more reasonable $28+ per share. Do I wish I had held out for the higher price before selling? Sure. Hindsight is always 20-20. But my risk tolerance would not allow me take this action and in the end it proved correct.
In this light, SS' actions are focused not only on just increasing their bottom line, but inducing potential investors to bid up the price of the stock such that some of the larger investors, who bought in at higher prices, can recoup at least some of their losses and/or make a profit by selling out. In the long term, this does not bode well for further investment and SS may have to resort to more draconian measures to achieve their internal goals ... at our expense.
-
Just a clarification, SS stock was never intended to pay a dividend to investors. The sole reason for investing was anticipated stock value gain. As the stock price rose, you could cash out for a profit or hang in there for anticipated further appreciation. I bought in to SS stock shortly after it first became available to the public. As it's price rose it's value to me, based on what I perceived as an unrealistic P/E ratio, became untenable. Thus I sold my interest just short of $50 per share and made a tidy short-term profit. I then watched as the share price continued to rise to well over $100 per share and knew this was totally unsustainable. Sure enough, it finally began to fall to a more reasonable $28+ per share. Do I wish I had held out for the higher price before selling? Sure. Hindsight is always 20-20. But my risk tolerance would not allow me take this action and in the end it proved correct.
In this light, SS' actions are focused not only on just increasing their bottom line, but inducing potential investors to bid up the price of the stock such that some of the larger investors, who bought in at higher prices, can recoup at least some of their losses and/or make a profit by selling out. In the long term, this does not bode well for further investment and SS may have to resort to more draconian measures to achieve their internal goals ... at our expense.
well said, and well done ,
congrats on your insight to profit quickly and get out.
you , as an avid investor, would know by now, the first taste of fine wine is always the sweetest,
or as the english say, the first puff of opium is always free.
in one word, to remind you if you were around to invest at that time, where we too made a great profit .. 500% instantly, .. and then got greedy thinking we'll hold on to make maybe 600%
only to find we ended up with 25, or even 28 cents per unit.
the stock??? Bri-X
-
for those wondering why i chose Bri-X???
mining industry can only sustain profit if there is really gold, diamond,etc..
we, the contributor is like the gold, diamond, oil, (drilling)etc..
if you fill your perception to investors with fake gold (like marijuana, apple, tomato, isolated..)
how long before the reality shows that the emperor really does not wear any clothes???
if instead ss realise the value of pleasing their "ore" supply (ie. us the contributors)
and realise that long term stability and reassurance to good supply of
commercial images and excellent editorial images, etc... which are the lifeline and bread and butter
of both ss and the clients...
how long before there is nothing but a ghost town with polluted land unusable and a threat to human living there...
the analogy to mining industry, ... or forestry,etc... raping the earth and walking away for
short term gain as opposed to long term sustainable growth and capital appreciation.
-
....If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
I think we all know who will be wanting to do that. Perhaps the only hope for us not seeing this go the same way as istock is if SS can go private again with Jon Oringer back in control but that isn't likely.
I have absolutely no faith in Jon, after all he is the one person responsible for making the decisions to take venture capitol, offer the SSTK IPO and price the SS product below the competition long term to gain market share. His actions speak louder than any words and he went into this with his eyes wide open as he watched what unfolded at IS.
None of the decisions above have been taken with the intent of protecting our assets or financial interests. Yet with each negative hit to our assets, the apple polishers come out of the woodwork to defend shutterstocks latest downward move as potentially beneficial to the majority.
Right, none of the decisions are about us or our assets or financial. Cutting EL payments to us will only benefit the company profits. I'm not opting out because it only hurts me and I get very few ELs anymore. Do people really think a protest will change anything?
-
Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-
As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.
-
We still can all immigrate to India.
Mirco
-
If only.....
-
Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-
As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.
Wont be so bad if those countries also start buying images. I would rather think of the potential buyers than the contributors.
-
My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.
If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.
I could not agree more. Back when these sites were owned and run by individuals, there was room to negotiate. Now they are owned by shareholders, venture capital companies and the like, there is no way to negotiate. If we stage an action, will the shareholders care, or even know? Only people we have any contact with are low level salaried employees. They have no power or interest to negotiate with us. Their job is to tell us whats gonna happen and try to make it sound okay. Neither they nor anyone else up the line really gives a spit what we think or do.
Here's the memo for anyone that didn't get it yet: our feelings and actions are irrelevant to the entities running the top agencies. Your protests aren't just falling on deaf ears. Their falling on no ears at all.
-
Someone in this thread or another (too lazy to check) said something along the lines of what's wrong with SS changing their business plan? All successful companies do this to adjust to markets, market segments, new platforms, etc, but those changes are VERY RARELY a consequence of more revenue for the contributor. Look at stock back 30 years ago (I am a little old I suppose) when a single image sold for $500 to $10K depending on how it was used, its uniqueness and the platform from which it was sold. Now we are angry (yes I am pissed off) that we're not getting $28 for very similar images. It will never stop and for those of us who rely on stock for some aspect of our lives a few bucks can amount to a lot if you have a well-selling portfolio.
It's unfortunate but contributors will always lose and agencies will always gain. SS could care less about us so long as they have their cushy, Google-like offices AND they are raking in the doe at our expense. Going public does that. So as long as SS is a publicly traded company, there WILL BE MORE ROYALTY CUTS. And as the infamous bullwhip effect occurs, we will see competitive responses that further erode what we get. With this change, SS not cut prices, only commissions. That's a response to Wall Street to shore up operating income. Wall Street wants good numbers every quarter, so I would not be surprised if we see more shaving this year from SS.
There is more though. Add in Fotolia to the mix. As they make strategic moves that further undercut SS (and other agencies) there will likely be competitive responses, and the viscous cycle continues.
I just spent the whole day preparing 1,000 videos for Alamy and may close Video Blocks and go back to Dissolve. Thank goodness I moved into video, but it, too, is seeing the same behaviors as images, so I am trying to get some of the goods now before it is too far diluted and no longer worthwhile to produce and submit.
Micro will be merely for those willing to get $50 a month for the lions share of contributors.
-
No ears I hear you say, at no point in the history of man has it been easier to reach and disturb those with the power, social media has been embraced by all of them and it's a two way process.
The ones with deaf ears are the defeatist contributors who use this thread to give reasons not to opt out and just carry on being milked like cows and given sour grass to live on.
I say, Opt out if for nothing more than your own dignity. The stories of a doomed future are a self fulfilling prophecy if you sit back and encourage it.
I will leave you all to spread your tales of woe, shame you couldn't do it on another thread, sorry you already did.
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work. Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work. Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.
This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.
Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.
Agree,
The opposite mindset has gotten us into this mess. How much do you suppose is enough for Jon?
-
This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
How many files did Fotolia lose in two weeks over the dollar photo club? 7 million?
Or getty over the deal with google?
Losing millions of files is very painful for every agency, thousands of customers have these files in their lightboxes for projects and when they complete the design and can´t buy they get really, really upset...
So shitstorm and witholding content are very, very powerful tools, negative social media chatter stays on the internet forever...
Agencies, especially agencies that plan to be around in a few years, have very solid reasons to avoid shitstorms. Too many of us are designers and buyers.
Shutterstock has a much higher rejection rate than other places (at least for me) and still has by far the largest collection.
They get this massive upload stream because the wider community trusts them with their property.
I am sorry, I really don´t think 95% of the artists are just sheep or idiots.Producing stock is work and very frustrating, I think they all are careful who they work with.
Otherwise agencies with a bad reputation or a low earnings score, wouldn´t have much smaller collections. And Fotolia wouldn´t just have sneaked all our content to dpc, they would have asked us instead.
But deleting and opting out, coupled with a shitstorm are very powerful instruments. Everyone has to decide for themselves when they feel it is merited.
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.
Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.
Agree,
The opposite mindset has gotten us into this mess. How much do you suppose is enough for Jon?
Jon sold the company and made his billion $
I beleive he is still on as a consultant in some capacity, so whatever happens to SS is of no consequence, other than maybe some sadness in seeing his once dream project deteriorate.
But, whatever, i hear that $10k notes have higher cotton percentage, so they make for nice tissues.
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.
This is a very clear fallacy: very popular, but very wrong!
This is no different than saying that supermarkets have no contribution to the economy because they only sell products made by farmers.
Just imagine your life if have to constantly drive 100 km to the nearest farm, to buy your food directly from the farmer.
Or imagine how much a farmer could focus in producing your food, if he would have to drive 100 km to sell his products directly to you. How much time would he have left to do his expert work: producing your food?
There are farmers markets, here and there, during some weekends, but this is rather the exception to the rule.
BTW, you can always grow your own food, if you want, but you will most probably become a farmer yourself, instead of being a photographer.
The same goes with the agencies: they do your marketing and the sales (for a price), allowing you to focus on what you are good at: producing photography.
If you are good at marketing and sales, you wouldn't need agencies to promote your work. And you can quit anytime, if you think you are better at sales and marketing. What stops you?
Actually if you would be that good, I rather believe that you would already have your own agency :)
The "middle man", so hated by the leftists, is essential for a successful economy, because it allows everybody to specialize and focus on their core strengths, instead of wasting time and energy playing amateurish games in sales or marketing.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that you have to accept whatever the "middle man" wants from you. When you have actual leverage, you can negotiate. Someone said, in some other thread (or here?), that social media could be used as powerful leverage in negotiations.
But again, you could not be 100% successful without an agent, a lawyer or an accountant, while none of these professions do "actual work" as defined by some proletarians.
-
This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
How many files did Fotolia lose in two weeks over the dollar photo club? 7 million?
Or getty over the deal with google?
Losing millions of files is very painful for every agency, thousands of customers have these files in their lightboxes for projects and when they complete the design and can´t buy they get really, really upset...
So shitstorm and witholding content are very, very powerful tools, negative social media chatter stays on the internet forever...
Agencies, especially agencies that plan to be around in a few years, have very solid reasons to avoid shitstorms. Too many of us are designers and buyers.
Shutterstock has a much higher rejection rate than other places (at least for me) and still has by far the largest collection.
They get this massive upload stream because the wider community trusts them with their property.
I am sorry, I really don´t think 95% of the artists are just sheep or idiots.Producing stock is work and very frustrating, I think they all are careful who they work with.
Otherwise agencies with a bad reputation or a low earnings score, wouldn´t have much smaller collections. And Fotolia wouldn´t just have sneaked all our content to dpc, they would have asked us instead.
But deleting and opting out, coupled with a shitstorm are very powerful instruments. Everyone has to decide for themselves when they feel it is merited.
But all DPC did was add an opt out and they are still selling content with millions of images that most others never opted out of, so even though 7mil images were removed DPC is still around screwing contributors who remained with millions of images. It didn't stop them. SS has an opt-out so you would need far more than 7 million images to make a statement and that's why my opinion is that the weight of contributors who support DPC and SS EL cuts is FAR greater than those who don't, leaving it a win-lose.
-
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
Could happen! And if it does, I'll quickly (and happily) make my images exclusive on Fotolia.
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.
This is a very clear fallacy: very popular, but very wrong!
This is no different than saying that supermarkets have no contribution to the economy because they only sell products made by farmers.
Just imagine your life if have to constantly drive 100 km to the nearest farm, to buy your food directly from the farmer.
Or imagine how much a farmer could focus in producing your food, if he would have to drive 100 km to sell his products directly to you. How much time would he have left to do his expert work: producing your food?
There are farmers markets, here and there, during some weekends, but this is rather the exception to the rule.
BTW, you can always grow your own food, if you want, but you will most probably become a farmer yourself, instead of being a photographer.
The same goes with the agencies: they do your marketing and the sales (for a price), allowing you to focus on what you are good at: producing photography.
If you are good at marketing and sales, you wouldn't need agencies to promote your work. And you can quit anytime, if you think you are better at sales and marketing. What stops you?
Actually if you would be that good, I rather believe that you would already have your own agency :)
The "middle man", so hated by the leftists, is essential for a successful economy, because it allows everybody to specialize and focus on their core strengths, instead of wasting time and energy playing amateurish games in sales or marketing.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that you have to accept whatever the "middle man" wants from you. When you have actual leverage, you can negotiate. Someone said, in some other thread (or here?), that social media could be used as powerful leverage in negotiations.
But again, you could not be 100% successful without an agent, a lawyer or an accountant, while none of these professions do "actual work" as defined by some proletarians.
Funny you should say that, because there's a growing movement in the U.S. for people to start eliminating lawns and start growing their own food. I did, and now grow almost all the fruits and vegetables I eat. It saves money on lawn maintenance, saves money on groceries, gives me fresh air and exercise and gives me better, fresher food. Supermarket food is really disappointing now. And my garden is much closer than the supermarket. (Of course, not everyone has the space or time to do that.)
Supermarkets make it easier for most people to shop for food, but if their suppliers all got together and stopped delivering to them, they'd quickly be out of business. Consumers would turn to a different supermarket chain very quickly. Of course, it's more difficult for farmers than it is for us. I doubt most of us will lose our livelihoods if we opt out of Enhanced Downloads.
-
Funny you should say that, because there's a growing movement in the U.S. for people to start eliminating lawns and start growing their own food. I did, and now grow almost all the fruits and vegetables I eat. It saves money on lawn maintenance, saves money on groceries, gives me fresh air and exercise and gives me better, fresher food. Supermarket food is really disappointing now. And my garden is much closer than the supermarket. (Of course, not everyone has the space or time to do that.)
Supermarkets make it easier for most people to shop for food, but if their suppliers all got together and stopped delivering to them, they'd quickly be out of business. Consumers would turn to a different supermarket chain very quickly. Of course, it's more difficult for farmers than it is for us. I doubt most of us will lose our livelihoods if we opt out of Enhanced Downloads.
Very good! Great initiative! But this is besides the point I want to make. You will still need your grocery store/supermarket close to the place you leave, no matter how much food you grow yourself. You still need a "middle man", to buy the expertise you don't possess from, in most aspects of your life.
-
Jon sold the company and made his billion $
I don't think Jonathan sold. Here's a report showing he still holds over 16 million shares and bought 200,000 last August
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades/buys (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades/buys)
-
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.
Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.
Agree,
The opposite mindset has gotten us into this mess. How much do you suppose is enough for Jon?
Jon sold the company and made his billion $
I beleive he is still on as a consultant in some capacity, so whatever happens to SS is of no consequence, other than maybe some sadness in seeing his once dream project deteriorate.
But, whatever, i hear that $10k notes have higher cotton percentage, so they make for nice tissues.
As of 08/28/2015 Jon still holds 16,256,327 shares. It takes time to update this information and he may have bought additional shares after this date. As you can see he has good reason to prop up stock prices.
http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/oringer-jonathan-891100 (http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/oringer-jonathan-891100)
More insider info
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades)
-
Jon sold the company and made his billion $
I don't think Jonathan sold. Here's a report showing he still holds over 16 million shares and bought 200,000 last August
[url]http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades/buys[/url] ([url]http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades/buys[/url])
My mistake.
I thought he had sold. Well, that IS interesting. His equity has taken a big, big hit. Even though hes still worth a gazillion bucks, even rich people cry when they go from $1B to 300 M
So, yes I guess I can return putting the blame on him, lol
-
This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
But all DPC did was add an opt out and they are still selling content with millions of images that most others never opted out of, so even though 7mil images were removed DPC is still around screwing contributors who remained with millions of images. It didn't stop them. SS has an opt-out so you would need far more than 7 million images to make a statement and that's why my opinion is that the weight of contributors who support DPC and SS EL cuts is FAR greater than those who don't, leaving it a win-lose.
But that is the whole point, if they have an opt out and don't do it, they made a business choice to keep their files on dpc. I know intelligent people with good portfolios that are opted in, while I am still opted out of dpc.
I am just trying to highlight that just because someone doesn't join a shitstorm ticket, doesn't mean he or she is an idiot.
To just label everyone as a "victim" of the agencies and helpless...really does not represent the reality of the stock industry. On the contrary I find people to be very smart and business wise, especially those that successfully make a reliable income every month.
Nobody is forced to submit to stock agencies and if you feel unfairly treated and the agency is not ready to talk to you, then public stands and deletions are much faster at getting results than a multi year court case.
So whoever feels strongly about the royalty change, by all means make a rally cry, but you will have to accept that not everyone feels the same way about it.
Like others have mentioned, supporting and focussing on artist friendly sites is overall probably the best we can do. But these agencies have to also really want to become Number one, we would all stand behind pond5 for photos, but they don't seem to making much progress in photo sales.
-
Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-
As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.
But there will also be growth of businesses etc wanting images and their income will grow making $75 less attractive.
-
Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-
As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.
what i tried to say from the beginning...if you want do this work full time you can do mostly where cost of living is low...and it can be also a bice choice...spend time in ukraine and asisa and i have much more fun and good living than where i live, but i understand is not possible for everybody.
i'm sure 50 percent of files in micro stock now are coming from 5 6 country, ukraine thai russia china
-
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
Or they might as well impose a near 100% rejection rate on any new content we would try to submit in the future... Anyways, if SS is to choose to punish those who joined this initiative then it will be my biggest disappointment in all this microstock industry..
-
This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.
CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.
But all DPC did was add an opt out and they are still selling content with millions of images that most others never opted out of, so even though 7mil images were removed DPC is still around screwing contributors who remained with millions of images. It didn't stop them. SS has an opt-out so you would need far more than 7 million images to make a statement and that's why my opinion is that the weight of contributors who support DPC and SS EL cuts is FAR greater than those who don't, leaving it a win-lose.
But that is the whole point, if they have an opt out and don't do it, they made a business choice to keep their files on dpc. I know intelligent people with good portfolios that are opted in, while I am still opted out of dpc.
I am just trying to highlight that just because someone doesn't join a shitstorm ticket, doesn't mean he or she is an idiot.
To just label everyone as a "victim" of the agencies and helpless...really does not represent the reality of the stock industry. On the contrary I find people to be very smart and business wise, especially those that successfully make a reliable income every month.
Nobody is forced to submit to stock agencies and if you feel unfairly treated and the agency is not ready to talk to you, then public stands and deletions are much faster at getting results than a multi year court case.
So whoever feels strongly about the royalty change, by all means make a rally cry, but you will have to accept that not everyone feels the same way about it.
Like others have mentioned, supporting and focussing on artist friendly sites is overall probably the best we can do. But these agencies have to also really want to become Number one, we would all stand behind pond5 for photos, but they don't seem to making much progress in photo sales.
Totally Agree.
-
for one comment above (supermarket parallel):
if there is no supermarket (which "only" sells farmers product) - yes, you'll have to drive/walk/whatever 100miles to the nearest farm, and trade with farmer directly.
if there is no farmer - anywhere/nowhere - you can go and try to find one in first-class private jet - but, having in mind there is no farmer - you won't eat. - no farmer-no food supply. food/farmer is "older" than supermarket.
i was selling my images before microstock, and i'll sell them after microstock as well - if there is demand for content. somehow, there will be the way from customer to producer. but, you guess - if there is no images - there is no images.
-
Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-
As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.
What you call "first world countries" are already third world countries, but they do not know it yet …
-
Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-
As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.
What you call "first world countries" are already third world countries, but they do not know it yet …
Such as?
-
^^ Oh no. Lets not derail this thread via political ideologies.
Jo Ann, kudos to you for taking a stand, whatever outcome positive or negative.
I too have opted out of EL after thinking further about all this nonsense taking place.
Thank you for starting this, and to all that are willing to support this.
-
for one comment above (supermarket parallel):
if there is no supermarket (which "only" sells farmers product) - yes, you'll have to drive/walk/whatever 100miles to the nearest farm, and trade with farmer directly.
if there is no farmer - anywhere/nowhere - you can go and try to find one in first-class private jet - but, having in mind there is no farmer - you won't eat. - no farmer-no food supply. food/farmer is "older" than supermarket.
i was selling my images before microstock, and i'll sell them after microstock as well - if there is demand for content. somehow, there will be the way from customer to producer. but, you guess - if there is no images - there is no images.
Sooner rather than later, you will realize that you will prefer to pay someone to drive those 100 miles for you, because that time will be better spent by you, doing what you are expert in: being a professor, an engineer, a photographer, etc.
Actually this happens today, in Venezuela's crippled economy, where black market "professional buyers" offer their services to those who can't afford to queue for hours, in front of those empty "supermarkets", waiting for food to arrive.
Now, replace "supermarket" with "agency", replace yourself, the "food buyer" with our clients, the "photo buyers", and you will understand that agencies are here to stay.
Again, this doesn't mean that I enjoy these EL royalty cuts, but one must be realistic in expectations and demands.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
^^ Oh no. Lets not derail this thread via political ideologies.
[…]
Nothing to do with political ideologies, it is just ineluctable, Asian countries will dominate the world in the next 50 years.
Only a global war could inverse the process now.
But we are off topic.
Sorry.
-
Jo Ann kindly set this thread up to discuss opting out of SS enhanced licenses in order to highlight a major issue in their changing attitude to contributors
I am not at all interested in what goes on in China, India or any other country or ideology political or otherwise.
Are you opting out yes or no ?
When Fotolia brought in Dollar Photo Club the microstock community rose up and took action with over 6 million images removed from DPC. It can be done again for these EL changes.
I care what happens to our earnings I opted out
-
Jo ann, thanks for this post. I also opted out of this money grab as i have done in the past whenever it mattered. And to the folks that are on the sidelines and saying it doesn't matter, it only is that way because you make it that way.
I think this place is pretty important for getting the news about this industry and if you as a contributor is making any significant income through microstock, this is the place you get your info.
If you really think this isn't going to matter, just do it for the first 3 months. that is enough time for the agency to realize if enough contributors opt out of this deal to make things better for the contributors.
-
Jo ann, thanks for this post. I also opted out of this money grab as i have done in the past whenever it mattered. And to the folks that are on the sidelines and saying it doesn't matter, it only is that way because you make it that way.
I think this place is pretty important for getting the news about this industry and if you as a contributor is making any significant income through microstock, this is the place you get your info.
If you really think this isn't going to matter, just do it for the first 3 months. that is enough time for the agency to realize if enough contributors opt out of this deal to make things better for the contributors.
Im out but it's not "those on the mcrostock on sidelines that count" more than the masses who don't read these forums, who don't tweet and those who don't stay informed. That is the real opportunity to poke Jon in the eye with a sharp stick.
Don't misread what I am saying. I am all for this. I just believe that SS has so many images flowing in that it would take far more today to send a message than back when Fotolia wasn't accepting foods of images but forcing contributors into DPC.
-
Could someone provide a comparison between enhanced licenses provided by major agencies (SS, FT, IS, 123RF, etc) and the royalties they pay?
I don't have one already made up, and you could do the research as easily as anyone else if you want to make a chart. It's hard to make apples to apples comparisons though.
For example, 123rf splits out different rights (as does DT) so they have limited, print and comprehensive ELs. The comprehensive EL netted me $37.35 last year for the 100 credit purchase (exact amount will vary depending on buyer's purchase price; I found one a few months before that netting $36.00).
DT's extended license royalties are priced differently based on image level as well. But when you consider that their rights are sold à la carte as opposed to one bundled set at SS, DT's royalties of up to $17 at level 0 and $30 at level 5 are greater than SS. I can't remember the last time I got an EL at DT though.
Today I got a LEL in 123RF for $2.20
-
In one of the German stock groups someone reported a sale fpr 32,12 usd.
of course there are others reporting lower values as well.
-
The German photographers magazine PROFIFOTO reported about the license cuts:
http://www.profifoto.de/business/2016/02/01/honorarkuerzungen/?utm_source=ProfiFoto&utm_campaign=36692faef9-Daily-Newsletter-*|RSSFEED%3ADATE%3Ad.m.Y|*&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_00ad30b2cb-36692faef9-203193781 (http://www.profifoto.de/business/2016/02/01/honorarkuerzungen/?utm_source=ProfiFoto&utm_campaign=36692faef9-Daily-Newsletter-*|RSSFEED%3ADATE%3Ad.m.Y|*&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_00ad30b2cb-36692faef9-203193781)
-
I got one for $16.30. I'm in 28% tier. Even under 25 EL package, which is their cheapest as far as I know, I should get at least $19. So, I guess SS have already started to offer cheaper EL packages to some of their customers. We will soon see $5 ELs. :-(
-
the joke goes on...
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87757-enhanced-license-change-follow-up/ (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87757-enhanced-license-change-follow-up/)
-
Today I got a LEL in 123RF for $2.20
The "Limited" part in that EL is different for every sale - 123rf has been asked but they don't publish anything about what rights can be had for what amount of credits or $$. I don't much like the lack of transparency regarding what rights were sold.
-
Today I got a LEL in 123RF for $2.20
The "Limited" part in that EL is different for every sale - 123rf has been asked but they don't publish anything about what rights can be had for what amount of credits or $$. I don't much like the lack of transparency regarding what rights were sold.
Who knows how limited it is.... Not only SS, most of these agencies exploit their contributors >:(
-
the joke goes on...
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87757-enhanced-license-change-follow-up/[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87757-enhanced-license-change-follow-up/[/url])
I suggested another approach in my reply there:
"Way back when, Shutterstock would change the prices (of subscriptions) to buyers and then, after a month or so to evaluate buying patterns would set a new rate for contributors. That seemed pretty reasonable and I don't recall any fuss made in the contributor community at the time. Yes, Shutterstock was taking in more money without paying out any more, but it was clear what was going on and we could see the growth.
If you really think you can increase the volume of Enhanced Licenses, why not take the same approach? Keep our $28 payout for a while - which doesn't require you to lose money even at substantial reductions from the current $99.50, $89.80 & $67.96 each - and once you have several months of increased volume to show us, set a percentage rate for the payouts?"
-
the joke goes on...
[url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87757-enhanced-license-change-follow-up/[/url] ([url]http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87757-enhanced-license-change-follow-up/[/url])
Thanks, you four — Sean, Jo Ann, Shelma, and Linn — for your good comments in that thread.
This really isn't the time to just roll over and take it yet again. I'm happy to be opted-out of SS ELs.
-
I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.
-
I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.
Just curious, at what point do you think will be too low of a payout for you not to opt out? It was easy for me to opt out of this deal as I thought $28 was a bit lower than what i should be getting compensated for someone else to reproduce/print my content for their own financial benefit. It should be at minimum 50% but then thats never gonna happen. I probably average 2 EL a month here and opting out will save me the grief of thinking about SS bigger take.
On another note, this move by shutterstock is making it more easier not to submit to this agency as i see the clear direction it is going forward with this move.
Ill take em when i can get em sounds a lot like thank you may i have another to me.
-
I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.
I just pictured a banner above Jon's desk. "They'll take 'em when they can get em". :)
-
FYI an new article about SS's response to our outrage: http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock-explains-royalty-cut-is-to-enable-price-cut.html (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock-explains-royalty-cut-is-to-enable-price-cut.html)
-
the royalty cut is quite severe when they also cut the selling price, even without the price cut, it would already have a big impact. i would not be surprised to see a 50-75% CUT on our ROYALTY
-
I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.
Just curious, at what point do you think will be too low of a payout for you not to opt out? It was easy for me to opt out of this deal as I thought $28 was a bit lower than what i should be getting compensated for someone else to reproduce/print my content for their own financial benefit. It should be at minimum 50% but then thats never gonna happen. I probably average 2 EL a month here and opting out will save me the grief of thinking about SS bigger take.
On another note, this move by shutterstock is making it more easier not to submit to this agency as i see the clear direction it is going forward with this move.
Ill take em when i can get em sounds a lot like thank you may i have another to me.
Either I quit microstock altogether or I take what's on offer. I have no power as an invidual to divert corporations from their corporate interests....and that's always been, more for them and less for me. If, at some point, the revenue stream from ms falls below a level that I consider not worth the effort, then I'll just stop providing them with content...in the full knowledge that there's thousands of other suckers prepared to do what I wasn't.
At present, the ms revenue stream is just one of a few others but I'm content with the present income when balanced with the effort invested. When the balance becomes inverted, I'll just have to find some other way to restore it to positive.
-
I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.
Just curious, at what point do you think will be too low of a payout for you not to opt out? It was easy for me to opt out of this deal as I thought $28 was a bit lower than what i should be getting compensated for someone else to reproduce/print my content for their own financial benefit. It should be at minimum 50% but then thats never gonna happen. I probably average 2 EL a month here and opting out will save me the grief of thinking about SS bigger take.
On another note, this move by shutterstock is making it more easier not to submit to this agency as i see the clear direction it is going forward with this move.
Ill take em when i can get em sounds a lot like thank you may i have another to me.
Either I quit microstock altogether or I take what's on offer. I have no power as an invidual to divert corporations from their corporate interests....and that's always been, more for them and less for me. If, at some point, the revenue stream from ms falls below a level that I consider not worth the effort, then I'll just stop providing them with content...in the full knowledge that there's thousands of other suckers prepared to do what I wasn't.
At present, the ms revenue stream is just one of a few others but I'm content with the present income when balanced with the effort invested. When the balance becomes inverted, I'll just have to find some other way to restore it to positive.
i agree....i repeat complaining about the lost of 7 dollar for a EL, considering the real state of the micro stock market is like the man who watch the finger and forgot the moon.
the problem is that EL are completely dead. thy messed with standard royalty, in the run down to the penny to have more customer, killing completely EL.
The only thing we can do is stocks way at this moment....i mean...1000 of stockers who are not spammers or third world photographer who upload 40 k at month, leave all agency and create a new one.-
-
A great Piece Posted on SS by Aspenphoto.
"Two things....
(1) Every movement starts with one person deciding they have had enough. Not comparing our issues to theirs in terms of severity...but from Mother Jones in the coal fields or silk mills to Rosa Parks in Birmingham to Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia and the Arab Spring movement...change starts with one....always. Again, their causes were life and death, human rights and against governments corruption. We are calling for common decency in an organization that trots out words like "partner" and fails to understand the meaning of the word at a basic level.
(2) Even if it does not lead to change on a large scale at SS, eventually an individual just has enough. I, and think others, am at that point. Enough...enough double talk, enough disrespect to my work and common sense. I (and others have as well) have taken a relatively small step to remove my portfolio from the EL pool. Yes that is only 15K images in a pool of millions. BUT, I had enough personally....this was a message that is clearly tied to the last BS double speak e-mail/messaging. I am actively exploring moving all 15K+ images I have to other streams. Maybe it will make no difference, but maybe a corporate entity will come here looking for that shot of a NCAA football player that I would have provided and it will only be available on a competitor. My action will then have a consequence to SS.
Do what you think is right for you. Some, sadly, are tied to revenue here for a living. I feel for them. But if you are financially able, opt out of ELs. Don't let this flicker away into the ethos like other SS slights have...
-
I won't be opting out of EL's for the simple reason that in the 3 years I've been at SS, I've had 31 EL's @$28 and in the 7 years I've been at FT (with 15% more images), I've had 5 EL's. Even pricing my EL's at 70 credits (instead of my max 100 credits) of which I get 25% doesn't get them sold at FT. I'll take 'em when I can get 'em at SS.
I just pictured a banner above Jon's desk. "They'll take 'em when they can get em". :)
And the kenny Rogers song Playing "Ya gotta know when to Hold em, and know when to fold them"
-
learning from history is good, .. whether it is in the context of world issues, or directly microstock..
we know what happened when an agency chooses to ignore the voice of the contributors..
all well-written in history of istock, getty,...
in business, the only voice that matters is very seldom the supplier...
eg farmer, fisherman, author,etc..
the only thing that matters and talk loudest is the shareholder, ..
and then next, the customer.
that is why marketing is so important . suppliers are plentiful, ... and blatantly, money talks volume.
so, being monkeys satisfied with peanuts, the only way to make the corporation listen
to get communicate the concerns to the shareholders and customers.
if the suppliers cannot get hold of the shareholders or customers..
nothing will be done. i say this, because we all know that's exactly what istock getty did.
it really does not matter if even the top 10 sellers pull out and go away,
the rest will still make up for the difference.
why? because stock photos are like fish, or books, or whatever you find in the "marketplace"...
easier to replace.
unless you hit them in the pocket... ie. the top 10 sellers form a new agency that
shows it can makes us as much earnings as we all get from ss.
only then, ss will listen. this is why it is futile to bang your head against the wall.
it is a noble thing to do, to stand for your belief,.. but it is still bloodletting...
-
History tells me that its a waste of time trying to get the big sites to change their ways. I did all I could to make istock and FT stop cutting commissions but all that did was lose me a lot of money. So now I see no point in reducing my microstock earnings again. I have over 1,500 images exclusive with alamy and lots of videos only on Pond5 because they pay 50%. That's my way of opting out of low commissions and lower prices with the micros.
-
Good Luck.
your a front runner when it comes to complaining about ss and taking action, here is action, and you wish them good luck instead of joining? my my
I will and always have put my voice where it mattered if I thought it made a difference for us. I totally Believe in 30/60 Days this will fall by the wayside Like every other thing That has come along.
When The day comes and we have one voice [which will never happen and one can dream] and actually have a say with Power..sadly, Very sadly I feel it's a joke to even think equality for all, will work. were here with what 20/30/50/100 good folks, when there are 30,000/40,000 who could care less that submit 750,000 a week for gods sake.. Thats the Issue guys, So get real...Not weather I support it or not.And I do.... BTW.
The term "Good Luck" was aimed at us, Not ss. Good Luck to Us. That post was edited, If SS read it before, there would have been hell to pay. I don't need that now. I go By My name. Not anonymous. sorry if you Mixed it up or I did. And Your Right I have been Very vocal since almost 11 years. I've said all I can say, Typed all I can type .......for what? to be treated Like some kind of traitor.? Back up, thats unfair.
When something wasn't right, I heard about it I guarantee sooner than 90% of you and tried to work it out. From Exclusives coming over to search Issues,to algorithm changes,a Million review issues, to the watermark fiasco that we had No input on and so much more, that to me does more damage than this. I used to get 8 EL's a day I miss them also. 2/3 a month now on a good month. Thats just silly. Should I cry? Naw at almost 73 it would look silly. been around a long time guys. we blew it 10+ years ago when sites were paying 20 Cents. Thats it, No EL's no Nothing. Who do you think fought for what we have??? A very small handfull who gave them a lot of grief.Thats who.
we are simply WAY out numbered by folks that are happy as Punch to get anything because someone likes there Pretty Pictures. When I joined there were 300.000 Images. we thought theres no way there could be more. In my conversations with Jon.......he knew there would be Lots more. And Oleg and Serban etc,etc,etc. I elect JoAnn for anything and i've said it before.Level Headed,smart,sensible and knows how to write. Mid to Late summer My Micro days and involvement good or bad will cease. Theres no soul,No fun and completely void of community now..
-
History tells me that its a waste of time trying to get the big sites to change their ways. I did all I could to make istock and FT stop cutting commissions but all that did was lose me a lot of money. So now I see no point in reducing my microstock earnings again. I have over 1,500 images exclusive with alamy and lots of videos only on Pond5 because they pay 50%. That's my way of opting out of low commissions and lower prices with the micros.
Smart.
-
I elect JoAnn for anything and i've said it before.Level Headed,smart,sensible and knows how to write.
well said. i too have always voted for JoAnn in all her posting here. she has what many of us do not have , the able to write well, and i think before that, there was only two others who are sadly missing... mitz and lisa.
not to dimean the others, but these 3 know the business and were not afraid to speak out.
others too, but not as predictable or countable as JoAnn, (and the late Mitz, and the missing lisa).
my comment afore was not to make little of JoAnn's effort, but more to say exactly what sharpshot
followed after my comment. it's reality of why it is futile. unless JoAnn is in someway to be able to fly to where ss shareholders meet, or get to speak directly to jonO,
everything else is just equal to strangling the receptionist or shooting the delivery man .
-
rinderart, no need for history lessons i was there, i don't recall you being the front runner though. but you opted out for ELs then?
-
I'm done fighting these companies and I'm letting this EL thing go. At least we still have ELs, when some companies are making it pretty obvious that they are willing to bend to buyer pressure to offer more extensive usage rights with standard license purchases already (i.e. Creative Market).
When is the last time things actually changed for the better in this business? I feel like we're always just fighting against some new change that hurts us, in some futile effort to just maintain the status quo. But the status quo hasn't even been the status quo in years.
At this point, I think the best I can hope for is to just ride this out as long as possible and have it as a secondary income. The days when I made a living doing this are long gone, and I'm not going to stress about every change that comes along to cut us further out of the profits. It is what it is. Nothing will change that.
LisaFX was right. When she left MSG over the DPC issue, I didn't see it her way. I do now. The best we can do is stretch this out a little longer, and sometimes that means staying opted-in to things we don't always like.
-
only then, ss will listen. this is why it is futile to bang your head against the wall.
it is a noble thing to do, to stand for your belief,.. but it is still bloodletting...
In the past, this is why I supported some of the other shitstorms (to use elenathewise's term :) ) against the other agencies. I figured that nothing would come of it, but I did it for me. Not to teach them a lesson, because they don't give a rats a$$.
I agree that "Every movement starts with one person deciding they have had enough." I had enough before...this one I am going to sit out for a while and see what happens. If I lose a couple of dollars on each EL but I double the number of ELs than I got last year, then I am ahead and making more money. That's what counts for me. I am NOT saying that SS is doing the right thing, because they most definitely are not. And I admire those who want to take a stand.
-
I opted out. It isn't like I am losing a huge amount of income because EL's are once in a blue moon.
Who knows, in a year or two we may only be earning 5 cents on a sub download photo...
I really don't like fotolia's EL license at all. Is there an opt out for that?
-
If we decide that our voices do not matter, they won't.
I don't believe that we are helpless to stop the greed for a moment. It is unfortunate that as a group we chose and continue to choose to believe that we do not deserve basic respect and compensation; from a group that has become extremely wealthy because of our financial resources, talent and hard work.
How far down are we willing to go, before we say enough is enough?
-
Most of us should be well aware that they intend to profit & gain market share by devaluing our assets. For those who have not see the quotes below they come straight from the horses mouth.
These guys are in this for short term profits, they do not care how much they devalue our ports to get what they want. If we do not take a stand the slide will continue and accelerate.
Snip
Duck Swartz
So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years
So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.
We haven’t raised prices in many years and thats been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco (http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco)
-
I opted out. It isn't like I am losing a huge amount of income because EL's are once in a blue moon.
Who knows, in a year or two we may only be earning 5 cents on a sub download photo...
I really don't like fotolia's EL license at all. Is there an opt out for that?
If we decide that our voices do not matter, they won't.
I don't believe that we are helpless to stop the greed for a moment. It is unfortunate that as a group we chose and continue to choose to believe that we do not deserve basic respect and compensation; from a group that has become extremely wealthy because of our financial resources, talent and hard work.
How far down are we willing to go, before we say enough is enough?
i think angelawaye and gbalex both correct. same with everyone after my comment...
some of us have been there before... ie the shitstorm...
for those of us old enough to remember our very first shitstorm ... the intro of digital camera
and the intro of micro stock.
we went from one drop of income to another drop of income and both very disheartening...
imagine earning 300 dollars as a newbie , fresh out of photography school,
got into freelancing in a metro city, first job ... first paycheck ... me??? green as the water behind my ears like a newborn. yes, 300 dollars for my first photography assignment.
today, how many dls do i need to make that same $300 ???
the reality is that when i first made my first paychq , i was one of a handful of pro photographers with knowledge of how to set the camera in manual and using a gossen meter,etc..
there was no such thing as auto, and we had to process everything ourselves because the client wanted it yesterday.
today, of course, we could give our clients what they wanted , even on the spot. and we are no longer one of a handful who knows how to take a good photograph. even that, what was a good photographs at that time, is necesary to earn that money. today, well, you know how little that
matters in microstock or any type of photography, .. except maybe for pirelli, etc..
will we all end up with 5 cts??? i think it is inevitable... unless the market demands really a well taken image like we used to with the film media.
the analogy would be going back to movies and music and classical dance, theatre,etc...
the technology has progress, but the standard of quality has plummeted. you don't need to write music like beethoven or paint like da vinci or even need to master an instrument to call yourself a professional anymore.
and the clients don't really care either. you only need to watch those amateurish ads on youtube to gather the reality.
it's not rocket science anymore.
-
There's an old adage that no one can take advantage of you unless you let them.
Anyone who is interested in an artist's union or association should read this thread as exhibit A as to why this has not yet happened.
This action does not require anyone to delete any part of their portfolio - or even to stop uploading. The cost to any individual artist of opting out is pretty small (especially for those who say they don't often get ELs)
And yet, it's something lots of contributors feel they can't support.
As far as trusting Shutterstock to see how things pan out with increasing the volume of ELs with price changes, I would point out that the prices for ELs are still unchanged, so right now they're not doing squat to increase ELs by lowering prices. All they're doing is taking in an increased share of what the buyer pays.
If they really were serious about their stated goals, the prices would have changed the same day the royalties did.
They didn't. They still haven't.
Think about the message it would send SS if customers could not buy any EL - the large corporate clients would be fine as they can use their custom plan with one of the SODs for whatever they need. SS doesn't care about contributors but they do care about customers. The customers would effectively deliver a message for us if they were calling to ask why they can't buy an EL all of a sudden.
What a missed opportunity.
-
^^ +100 Every word
-
There's an old adage that no one can take advantage of you unless you let them.
Anyone who is interested in an artist's union or association should read this thread as exhibit A as to why this has not yet happened.
This action does not require anyone to delete any part of their portfolio - or even to stop uploading. The cost to any individual artist of opting out is pretty small (especially for those who say they don't often get ELs)
And yet, it's something lots of contributors feel they can't support.
As far as trusting Shutterstock to see how things pan out with increasing the volume of ELs with price changes, I would point out that the prices for ELs are still unchanged, so right now they're not doing squat to increase ELs by lowering prices. All they're doing is taking in an increased share of what the buyer pays.
If they really were serious about their stated goals, the prices would have changed the same day the royalties did.
They didn't. They still haven't.
Think about the message it would send SS if customers could not buy any EL - the large corporate clients would be fine as they can use their custom plan with one of the SODs for whatever they need. SS doesn't care about contributors but they do care about customers. The customers would effectively deliver a message for us if they were calling to ask why they can't buy an EL all of a sudden.
What a missed opportunity.
your last para. more or less sums it all up nicely, JoAnn.
i suppose those who have not seen any income from EL does not see the point .
and for those like you, etc who do have regular earnings from EL would be more affected encouragement to stand and be counted.
i guess either we stop uploading the kinds of work that get us EL or we opt out.
this is the skipping stone that is why you see so little support to opt out.
i wish there were more, but even i have seen a large drop in EL. even to the point of zero earnings of those 28 to 102 dollars commission, so long ago that i feel the damage has already been done, ie. increasing the print run .
finally, The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.
We haven’t raised prices in many years and thats been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
[url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/qcqszco[/url])
the quotes by gblex more or less say loud and clear...
read our lips, we do not intent to increase prices...
not for a long time...
in fact, we plan to decrease prices instead.
there is an old saying that it is easier to decrease prices
but once you start to decrease prices...
you can forget about ever ever to increase prices ... not even a penny .
why??? because you give the customer the impression your prices have already been too overpriced.
,, and the customer will now expect a lot less to pay.
-
As far as trusting Shutterstock to see how things pan out with increasing the volume of ELs with price changes, I would point out that the prices for ELs are still unchanged, so right now they're not doing squat to increase ELs by lowering prices. All they're doing is taking in an increased share of what the buyer pays.
If they really were serious about their stated goals, the prices would have changed the same day the royalties did.
Just FYI, I got this answer to my inquiry today:
" If your earnings was $21.06 and you are in the 30% group then the sales price was $72 dollars. it is very common for us, like any other business, to give discounts for bulk orders or special offers with coupon codes etc."
-
If we decide that our voices do not matter, they won't.
I don't believe that we are helpless to stop the greed for a moment. It is unfortunate that as a group we chose and continue to choose to believe that we do not deserve basic respect and compensation; from a group that has become extremely wealthy because of our financial resources, talent and hard work.
How far down are we willing to go, before we say enough is enough?
And how have we shown in the past that our voices matter? DPC? 6 million less images than FT...they really don't care. It's not important to them....but yes I'm opted out of DPC but only for the reason that I think I'm protecting my ODDs and SODs at SS. Maybe it's worked too because my SS income is still pretty stable.
Having reached the top tier of SS recently, I'm likely biased in not opting out of ELs. At best, I'll get $29 for an EL and at worst $20. As previously stated, at FT I ask 70 credits for an EL of which I get 25% but almost never sell any EL's there, so that's 25% of nowt. I note that one of our erstwhile members here (since withdrawn) who turned emerald FT-yahoo a year or so ago has all his (excellent) images there priced at 30 credits for an EL. So I reckon that he's happy with $10 for every EL sold there which I wouldn't be. I'll take the SS price for an EL for the time being.
I do agree with Jo Ann that SS is telling us fibs when they say they're lowering the EL price to us to remain competitive whilst keeping the price for ELs the same to the customer..that is downright deceitful.
-
i suppose those who have not seen any income from EL does not see the point .
I do see some income from ELs, and i do see the point. I am pretty sure everyone here sees the point, that doesnt mean they agree with this particular solution.
i guess either we stop uploading the kinds of workthat get us EL or we opt out.this is the skipping stone that is why you see so little support to opt out.
No, there is a third, even more effective way to take a stand than clicking an opt out button...stop doing business with people that rip you off. That is a much harder decision to make than opting out. And everyone needs to make those decisions for themselves.
-
Just FYI, I got this answer to my inquiry today:
" If your earnings was $21.06 and you are in the 30% group then the sales price was $72 dollars. it is very common for us, like any other business, to give discounts for bulk orders or special offers with coupon codes etc."
But that's within the current price range (published on the US site): from $99.50 to $67.96 (2 pack to 25 pack). Until there's a buyer price below $67.96, I don't see that as a price cut although it's possible they may sell one license at that price versus previously requiring a larger number to be purchased.
Look at other gig economy protests against similar types of moves - reducing the prices and saying you'll make it up in volume sounds so familiar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/uber-drivers-and-others-in-the-gig-economy-take-a-stand.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/business/uber-drivers-and-others-in-the-gig-economy-take-a-stand.html)
-
If we decide that our voices do not matter, they won't.
I don't believe that we are helpless to stop the greed for a moment. It is unfortunate that as a group we chose and continue to choose to believe that we do not deserve basic respect and compensation; from a group that has become extremely wealthy because of our financial resources, talent and hard work.
How far down are we willing to go, before we say enough is enough?
And how have we shown in the past that our voices matter? DPC? 6 million less images than FT...they really don't care. It's not important to them....but yes I'm opted out of DPC but only for the reason that I think I'm protecting my ODDs and SODs at SS. Maybe it's worked too because my SS income is still pretty stable.
Having reached the top tier of SS recently, I'm likely biased in not opting out of ELs. At best, I'll get $29 for an EL and at worst $20. As previously stated, at FT I ask 70 credits for an EL of which I get 25% but almost never sell any EL's there, so that's 25% of nowt. I note that one of our erstwhile members here (since withdrawn) who turned emerald FT-yahoo a year or so ago has all his (excellent) images there priced at 30 credits for an EL. So I reckon that he's happy with $10 for every EL sold there which I wouldn't be. I'll take the SS price for an EL for the time being.
I do agree with Jo Ann that SS is telling us fibs when they say they're lowering the EL price to us to remain competitive whilst keeping the price for ELs the same to the customer..that is downright deceitful.
If we are not prepared to take a stand on pricing, we can expect a continued slide in our own revenue. And we will have only ourselves to blame if we fail to take a stand.
Shutterstock has openly stated that their growth strategy is undercutting the competition and that this strategy is working well for them. Now they are not happy with this and are taking a swipe at our royalties.
Shutterstock has nothing to lose by undercutting competition to gain market share, they gain revenue with each price cut to their product and each cut to our royalties.
-
There always have been and always will be a certain percentage of people who don't care, can't be bothered, think nothing can make a difference, cross picket lines, etc.
Yet unions do form and people do protest and change does happen.
-
There always have been and always will be a certain percentage of people who don't care, can't be bothered, think nothing can make a difference, cross picket lines, etc.
Yet unions do form and people do protest and change does happen.
I'm all for unions. They are effective if you can get the majority of workers to join, pay dues, and support collective bargaining. Do we have a union representing us? Negotiating with top management on our behalf? Where do I send my dues payment?
No?? Then this is just another shitstorm (good word Elena).
-
This is an email reply I got from SS:
You are in the 30% group then it means that the license was sold to the customer for (17.16/30)*100=$57.20 each.
It is very normal to offer discounts to customers who want to purchase custom packages of more than 25 downloads.
Any business will offer discounts for bulk purchases.
They have already started offering ELs for lower prices. What's next? They will change royalty structure for videos when they have enough videos in their library. Currently it's 30% for all.
-
Good Luck.
your a front runner when it comes to complaining about ss and taking action, here is action, and you wish them good luck instead of joining? my my
I think that Laurin has very more serious problems than to opt out now…
OK....I'll bite since you think you know me.. what might those problems be? Please be very specific.
-
There is a third option between opting in and opting out:
Upload the good stuff elsewhere and support fair trade sites.
This is not a black and white situation.
-
rinderart, gbalex, did you opt out?
-
There always have been and always will be a certain percentage of people who don't care, can't be bothered, think nothing can make a difference, cross picket lines, etc.
Yet unions do form and people do protest and change does happen.
I'm all for unions. They are effective if you can get the majority of workers to join, pay dues, and support collective bargaining. Do we have a union representing us? Negotiating with top management on our behalf? Where do I send my dues payment?
No?? Then this is just another shitstorm (good word Elena).
Yes we need a union to force our interests. We should form a club with a small membership fee. Once in a year we can vote for what the membership fee should used (maybe an action or create an best agencie award etc.).
Thats could be a beginning of a unity...
-
tried/suggested a million times, will never happen
-
tried/suggested a million times, will never happen
Why it will never happen? it will happen when the race to to the bottom is painful enough its a question of time.
-
unless you get 30% of the contributors on board including some top contributors, we will not make a difference. thats not being negative, thats being realistic. the factories wont join in, they have a responsibility to pay people on their payroll. we have also seen when yuri left, taking 110k images and millions in dollars, ss just let him go without blinking. why do you think ss limited the amount of images you can delete at 1 time? because theyve learned from istock dday and the dpc revolt. they knew al along they were going to cut royalties, and more will come. we will see a drop in royalties until this business becomes unsustainable for the amateurs. and only then, when the microstock business defaults, we will see a change. but that will be a long way from now, look at getty, they keep dragging themselves along when they have been broke for years now. the bubble will burst, but dont hold your breath
-
We lost the war 5 years ago when many of us were willing to leave istock after cutting commissions below 20% but too many just carried on uploading. Since then, we could of changed things at any time by supporting the sites that pay 50% but lots of people just complain that they have low sales. There's no point winning the odd battle when you are going to lose the war.
If people want to get serious about this, I have no problem leaving sites that have cut commissions and pay less than 40% if the vast majority of contributors do the same. Until that happens, the sites have us exactly where they want us.
-
unless you get 30% of the contributors on board including some top contributors, we will not make a difference. thats not being negative, thats being realistic. the factories wont join in, they have a responsibility to pay people on their payroll. we have also seen when yuri left, taking 110k images and millions in dollars, ss just let him go without blinking. why do you think ss limited the amount of images you can delete at 1 time? because theyve learned from istock dday and the dpc revolt. they knew al along they were going to cut royalties, and more will come. we will see a drop in royalties until this business becomes unsustainable for the amateurs. and only then, when the microstock business defaults, we will see a change. but that will be a long way from now, look at getty, they keep dragging themselves along when they have been broke for years now. the bubble will burst, but dont hold your breath
You are right a long time... If there are agencie splits of 70% and more there is enough money in the business. Its time for agencie comission cut.
Lets annoy shareholders :o...
-
tried/suggested a million times, will never happen
Why it will never happen? it will happen when the race to to the bottom is painful enough its a question of time.
15% with istock isn't painful enough, I dread to think what will be, maybe when we have to start paying the sites for the privilege of selling our images?
-
Us uploading to fair trade sites is not enough. You need one that has the drive and ambition to become the best agency on the planet and are willing to have an agency with hundreds of employees.
If they just want the place to feed their family and 10 employees they won't make enough for us.
They really need to make a VERY public stand they are here to stay and want to be the best.
Unfortunately, I am not hearing that. Instead they are all claiming I want to be King of my tiny little niche and nobody wants to offer the customer and the artist a complete solution.
So...we all need to diversify and work with many different places.
Sorry, don't want to derail the thread.
Again, I am opted in because I believe there is a genuine opportunity to increase sales and I prefer a system that is based on percentage.
But I don't have all my content there, files not suitable for high volume downloads don't go there.
-
tried/suggested a million times, will never happen
Why it will never happen? it will happen when the race to to the bottom is painful enough its a question of time.
15% with istock isn't painful enough, I dread to think what will be, maybe when we have to start paying the sites for the privilege of selling our images?
apparently not. Seems that the major contributors still live well ;D
-
Only good thing in all this mess is that high quality photographers with highest quality (technically, commercially and artistic) work will start to value their photos again and turn back to macrostock and microstock will be for low quality, cheap and mobile photography kind of snapshots.
edit: designers will again start to search for more quality/different contest and that will be some kind of end for microstock..
we just need one more site like stocksy, with image exclusivity, high prices, high quality BUT without that need for instagram retro feel. I will first submit my best work to site like that.
-
There always have been and always will be a certain percentage of people who don't care, can't be bothered, think nothing can make a difference, cross picket lines, etc.
Yet unions do form and people do protest and change does happen.
I'm all for unions. They are effective if you can get the majority of workers to join, pay dues, and support collective bargaining. Do we have a union representing us? Negotiating with top management on our behalf? Where do I send my dues payment?
Like I said, there will always be a small percentage of people who are naysayers and always have something negative to say.
-
Good Luck.
your a front runner when it comes to complaining about ss and taking action, here is action, and you wish them good luck instead of joining? my my
I think that Laurin has very more serious problems than to opt out now…
OK....I'll bite since you think you know me.. what might those problems be? Please be very specific.
As there is a thread rolling out your problems of surgery on the Shutterstock forum* I have thought that it was legitimate to believe that you have more important problems in life than opting out, or not, for the EL licence on Shutterstock… Nothing more.
* http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/76420-laurins-surgery/page-1?hl=laurin (http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/76420-laurins-surgery/page-1?hl=laurin)
But I'm probably wrong, sorry
-
tried/suggested a million times, will never happen
Why it will never happen? it will happen when the race to to the bottom is painful enough its a question of time.
15% with istock isn't painful enough, I dread to think what will be, maybe when we have to start paying the sites for the privilege of selling our images?
We already do FAA, Photoshelter and those.
-
We lost the war 5 years ago when many of us were willing to leave istock after cutting commissions below 20% but too many just carried on uploading.
one question i need to ask you. istock is still alive and well...
according to the right column.. 38.4% exclusive 110.9
it did not fail for many; only failed for us who left istock during that time.
There is a third option between opting in and opting out:
Upload the good stuff elsewhere and support fair trade sites.
This is not a black and white situation.
like where??? fair trade sites promising fair share, cobalt???
fair-share of 0 = 0
show me a site that sells daily as ss sells for me, and i will be there in a jiffy.
afaik, all the new fair trade sites are still after many years in single digit or low earners.
the new sites have 0 track record or is not open to all. and their images are not really
sustainable ... much like art-pop images, they don't last with generations.
that is like investing in penny stocks... you go broke in the long run...
back to istock, obviously it does work for some ppl ie. exclusive.
so istock , as much as i hate their performance which is now being aped by ss
to rewrite history to damnation, it is * for the majority, but not to a chosen few.
i think the answer is be those chosen few that is going to make ss open to communication.
as i said before, shouting here and at the forum is like screaming at the groundfloor concierge
and clubbing the delivery boy.
you have to find a way to talk to Jon O or the shareholders or the clients.
how??? i don't know. if i do, i won't be here talking either ;)
-
There always have been and always will be a certain percentage of people who don't care, can't be bothered, think nothing can make a difference, cross picket lines, etc.
Yet unions do form and people do protest and change does happen.
I'm all for unions. They are effective if you can get the majority of workers to join, pay dues, and support collective bargaining. Do we have a union representing us? Negotiating with top management on our behalf? Where do I send my dues payment?
Like I said, there will always be a small percentage of people who are naysayers and always have something negative to say.
I'm dead serious. I would join a union or trade association today if we had one. Its called organized labor for a reason. We are not organized. Until we are, all these calls for boycotts don't have any measueable effect on the agencies. Unions don't just spring up by magic. Unless you are actively taking steps to start one and organize, this is just a lot of hot air.
-
Why wait for someone else to start a union? Why not start one yourself? Why do people complain and say nothing will help when others are actually doing something—even something as minor as opting out—but then also expect those other people who are actually doing something to step up and do even more before they'll consider doing anything themselves, however minor.
Fotolia lost millions of images in DPC very quickly, gave us an opt out, and is now no longer actively promoting it. So even without a formal union we were fairly successful there. I don't know why some people don't consider that a win...I guess nothing less than instantly shutting a huge agency down is seen as "effective" by some.
I've mentioned it before...people in my neighborhood have the same attitude about a local noise nuisance, which is their excuse for doing nothing to change it. But by attending a few town meetings, starting a little Facebook page and getting my message in the newspaper, the noise has been reduced by more than 80%...just from one annoying person (me) speaking out regularly. Of course, ask my neighbors and they'll still say it's hopeless and you can't change anything, because even though 80% of the noise is gone, 20% of it is still there.
Crazy.
-
this is just a lot of hot air.
this is the part i agree most with you.
union solves nothing. how many times do you drive by a strike and see happy faces in the end???
a union is the other end of the extreme; one end of the abuse of the employer, the other end is the abuse of the union. both is coercsion (spelling???)
it is like child boycott or blackmail parent i will eat the veggies if you buy me that new game, if not, no dice.
the only solution with the union is really no solution. the only ppl who win in the union is your labour bosses who gets paid to cause strike every time a contract is renewed. nobody else wins... not your employer not you.
in the best companies, there are no unions. no one gets promoted by seniority or by nepotism, ..
only performance gets promoted.
same with ss problem here. we are not going to get ss to budge by being the angry strikers or the blackmailing child. we have to find a way to speak with the ppl who make the rules..
and speak with them like equals. not union, not strikers, not children, etc..
how is that going to happen??? look elsewhere other than those things like screaming, striking, blackmail, scaring, threatening,etc...
these things will only be short lived solution, like the union method.
you will have to go on strike again the next time.
-
There is a third option between opting in and opting out:
Upload the good stuff elsewhere and support fair trade sites.
This is not a black and white situation.
like where??? fair trade sites promising fair share, cobalt???
fair-share of 0 = 0
show me a site that sells daily as ss sells for me, and i will be there in a jiffy.
afaik, all the new fair trade sites are still after many years in single digit or low earners.
the new sites have 0 track record or is not open to all. and their images are not really
sustainable ... much like art-pop images, they don't last with generations.
that is like investing in penny stocks... you go broke in the long run...
That is the whole point - a site where you can just upload everything without sorting by style...I think that leaves you with pond5 and maybe one of the smaller places.
Daily downloads will only happen on a site that sells subscriptions. Is that really what you want?
If you want higher priced, regular, monthly downloads, you have to sort your content by style and genre and find more specialized places. 500pix, maybe stockfood, knock on the door of stocksy,blendimages,tetra,westend61 etc...for mobile stock there are twenty20,eyeem etc...and probably many other places.
An agency that offers a system like the old istock system for exclusives - everything from subscription, midstock to macrostock, plus their editors sort your content into differently themed collections like vetta and agency...I don´t see that at the moment.
Pond5 has the best potential, but they don´t seem to be doing much with photos. For videos their system works really,really well.
So no, there is no one size fits all agency that I can recommend, but there are many, many options available if you sort your content correctly.
There is much more than Shutterstock, Fotolia, istock on the market.
Maybe this is even better for us, instead of being fully dependent on one superlarge amazonstyle marketplace.
-
rinderart, gbalex, did you opt out?
Yes I did opt out as I stated earlier in this thread. This move gives shutterstock two ways to reduce the amount of royalties they pay us. One directly thru reduced royalties and the other thru increasing the number of EL's paid to lower tier contributors via increased image exposure in the search.
I have opted out for the following reason:
If you think like a programmer and mathematician, which Jon does. (Remember he built the original SS site himself)
You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers. Think database queries based on port download numbers sorted by a changing contributor join date to make it less obvious to new contributors that the cards are stacked. The search can dynamically pull images out of the database based on many image parameters. Databases are powerful tools.
This new tiered royalty, gives shutterstock the ability maximizing profits further at our expense. This will help keep stock prices up and keep the wallstreet crowd happy, but sucks for us.
-
Why wait for someone else to start a union? Why not start one yourself?
You're the one who brought them up. Shouldn't you be answering that question yourself?
Don't kid yourself about DPC. I really wish it had been as successful as you say. Maybe SS would not be pulling this now. But alas, FT were full steam ahead on DPC. The opt outs didnt make a dent. It was Adobe who dropped that because it didn't fit with their business plan. The ruckus over that had absolutely no affect on DPC, FT, or its sales, as evidenced by the fact they were so attractive to be bought by no less than Adobe. Only result was some people were kicked off FT, and have been unsuccessfully trying to get back in once Adobe took over.
-
You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers.
Here we go again! Same old conspiracy under a new form!
If you check the EL poll, you will notice that a large majority of ELs announcements is coming from top tier contributors.
As I said, it may be the case that only top tier contributors vote on that poll, but I rather doubt it. From what I see, there are a lot of beginners on this forum, maybe more than veterans.
Anyway, the graph may actually show that your theory is only a conspiracy theory: 74% of ELs are announced by top tier contributors. While this large gap may also be caused by the fact that top tier contributors have larger ports, this evidence rather invalidates your speculations!
-
Don't kid yourself about DPC. I really wish it had been as successful as you say. Maybe SS would not be pulling this now. But alas, FT were full steam ahead on DPC. The opt outs didnt make a dent. It was Adobe who dropped that because it didn't fit with their business plan. The ruckus over that had absolutely no affect on DPC, FT, or its sales, as evidenced by the fact they were so attractive to be bought by no less than Adobe. Only result was some people were kicked off FT, and have been unsuccessfully trying to get back in once Adobe took over.
Yeah, that is kind of what I thought about it, too.
I think that if DPC were in any way going to contribute big $$ to the deal, believe that Adobe would be still be marketing the heck out of it.
-
i am getting a bit tired of the finger-pointing. why is anyone not wanting to cut their income further a naysayer, naive, negative? get off your high horse. everyone has a right to do whats best for them.
-
i am getting a bit tired of the finger-pointing. why is anyone not wanting to cut their income further a naysayer, naive, negative? get off your high horse. everyone has a right to do whats best for them.
This is true for all sides. No need for name-calling from anyone.
-
Good Luck.
your a front runner when it comes to complaining about ss and taking action, here is action, and you wish them good luck instead of joining? my my
i am getting a bit tired of the finger-pointing. why is anyone not wanting to cut their income further a naysayer, naive, negative? get off your high horse. everyone has a right to do whats best for them.
-
[Double post]
-
i am getting a bit tired of the finger-pointing. why is anyone not wanting to cut their income further a naysayer, naive, negative? get off your high horse. everyone has a right to do whats best for them.
Just because some people, always the same, think to be the knowers of truth, in any circumstance, and cannot admit that some other people can think in a different way than them.
-
anathaya, correct, the two comments have a a difference context
copidosoma, agree, dont see any name calling in my comment though
-
My first EL under the new rules...$29.85 which is $1.85 better than under the old EL flat rate regime.
-
You will understand that with the new EL price tiers, shutterstock has the ability to tweak it's search to serve a larger percentage of content from lower tier contributors, to buyers.
Here we go again! Same old conspiracy under a new form!
If you check the EL poll, you will notice that a large majority of ELs announcements is coming from top tier contributors.
As I said, it may be the case that only top tier contributors vote on that poll, but I rather doubt it. From what I see, there are a lot of beginners on this forum, maybe more than veterans.
Anyway, the graph may actually show that your theory is only a conspiracy theory: 74% of ELs are announced by top tier contributors. While this large gap may also be caused by the fact that top tier contributors have larger ports, this evidence rather invalidates your speculations!
Of course contributors who have been with the site for many years are going to have more EL's.
They typically have more technical and artistic experience as well as time to determin what buyers are looking for and they have had years to find niches. They also have 10,000 to 30,000 files vs a new port with 100 - 1000 files and limited experience.
-
They typically have more technical and artistic experience as well as time to determin what buyers are looking for and they have had years to find niches.
You are perfectly right! I cannot agree more!
That's exactly why SS cannot afford to neglect or downplay these superior photos made by veterans, if they want to keep their customers happy!
As you very well said, these photos can be better technically and artistically. And this advantage is even obsolete, when you talk about niches discovered by veterans, right?
All SS competitors will always wait for such a stupid mistakes to happen, in order to lure SS customers to them:
"Come to FT, IS, etc. Look at all those superior photos (both technically and artistically) SS is hiding from you!
All these beauties are easy to find on our website. Don't waste your time with SS! Time is money."
That's exactly why SS cannot afford to neglect or downplay these superior photos made by veterans! This is probably the main reason top tier contributors are selling more EL's, indeed. Because, beginners might have smaller ports, but there are so many new contributors. Overall, the large number of new contributors will, probably, compensate their smaller ports. A similar survey, mapping the earning tier to the port size, could clarify the matter.
You probably noticed that some people on this forum believe that the quality you talk about (technical and artistic quality) is not important for microstock. How can they expect decent sales if they can't or don't want to compete?
-
anathaya, correct, the two comments have a a difference context
copidosoma, agree, dont see any name calling in my comment though
It was intended to refer to the conversation in general not specific to your comment.
-
My first EL under the new rules...$29.85 which is $1.85 better than under the old EL flat rate regime.
Not many will get that but we will get 30% which is better than most micro places. Why is 30% so bad? They cut prices to make more sales. We might get less. But we will get 30%.
What do EL pay on IS, FT, AL, DT, 123RF, or DP? More or less. Anybody have the percentage or money numbers. I'd like to know them.