-
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150428/TECHNOLOGY/150429859/billionaire-shutterstock-founder-gets-28m-grant (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150428/TECHNOLOGY/150429859/billionaire-shutterstock-founder-gets-28m-grant)
-
Quote: The stock award was designed "with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element,"
-
There's a lot of disturbing facts in that blog plus a few completely false statements
-
Mo money mo problems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw)
-
so who's the math genius here...
what is $28 million divided by the number of ss contributors???
expect that to be added to each of our may's earning
as profit-sharing or just plain decent share-the-wealth
with those who really made you rich(er)
p.s. thx arenacreative for the moving ants idea, i like them better than just color and size
-
You should start typing in BrEezAh language too.
-
quote of the article:
The stock award was designed "with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element"
Given the lack of pay raises commented now and again by contributors, it seems that contributors don't need to be retained or motivated.
-
hire some competant reviewers!
-
quote of the article:
The stock award was designed "with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element"
Given the lack of pay raises commented now and again by contributors, it seems that contributors don't need to be retained or motivated.
That was my first thought on reading that.
But after you have your first few million, I don't think loads more money would be motivating. I think that's when you can pursue other values.
-
that is a pretty solid kick in the noids for all the SS slaves out there. this man exploits people and gets filthy rich doing so, but to further reward him for robbery is sick. does greed know no limits?
-
"Loss aversion" refers to people's tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains, like playing a game of Monopoly - as soon as you get in the lead you'll start to worry more about losing what you've gained!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/your-money/overcoming-an-aversion-to-loss.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/your-money/overcoming-an-aversion-to-loss.html?_r=0)
Greed? It's an addiction... possibly with a certain complex too, imho.
Anyways, DISLIKE!
-
NEWS FLASH
The oxymoron award of the year goes to this quote.
"with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element"
-
quote of the article:
The stock award was designed "with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element"
Given the lack of pay raises commented now and again by contributors, it seems that contributors don't need to be retained or motivated.
That was my first thought on reading that.
But after you have your first few million, I don't think loads more money would be motivating. I think that's when you can pursue other values.
He pulled more than that out of the company before they went public. And more after that. Someone who cares about their company, its employees and suppliers does not need money to stay motivated.
He sold us out for money, plain and simple.
-
Jon is no Dan Price
What we can learn from the CEO who took a 93% pay cut to give his team a raise
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/news/companies/ceo-pay-cuts-pay-increases/ (http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/news/companies/ceo-pay-cuts-pay-increases/)
"Ask yourself what is the right thing for you to do"
-
quote of the article:
The stock award was designed "with the objectives of retaining and motivating him while providing a strong pay-for-performance element"
Given the lack of pay raises commented now and again by contributors, it seems that contributors don't need to be retained or motivated.
That was my first thought on reading that.
But after you have your first few million, I don't think loads more money would be motivating. I think that's when you can pursue other values.
He pulled more than that out of the company before they went public. And more after that. Someone who cares about their company, its employees and suppliers does not need money to stay motivated.
He sold us out for money, plain and simple.
I don't think he sold anyone out for money - he is a business man and a smart one at that - he understands people's weakness. It was pretty clear from day one what his motivation was just by his royalty rates on offer. He has however certainly exploited people that is if you agreed to the terms and chose to submit. So in a roundabout way, who do you blame? He owes you nothing apart from what you agreed to. Or was there a "I get filthy rich from exploitation and share it with you" clause? I didn't think so.
-
hire some competant reviewers!
not gonna happen.
as i wrote last month they're actually hiring freelance reviewers working at home and paid a pittance, probably lower than grilling burgers at mcdonalds... talk about keeping standards and quality high ! :)
-
unfortunately, Oringer is just a symptom, not THE problem.
He and SS are the final result of the whole boom/bust cycle of the post-internet stock industry, if it wasn't Oringer it would be the other 2-3 top agencies, nothing would change much, even Alamy slashed our fees, we're alone against all of the odds and totally at the mercy of greedy agencies that don't even treat us as respectable and loyal suppliers, we're all taken for granted, we'll never see our buyers face to face, we'll never set foot in a stock agency or shake their hands and have a chat together unless we pay ourself a trip to the biggest stock industry fairs and even so what do you expect ? the top sellers are maybe contributing for 0.1% of SS's archive, you won't be missed if you leave for greener pastures, just as nobody noticed Yuri's departure for Getty.
-
hire some competant reviewers!
not gonna happen.
as i wrote last month they're actually hiring freelance reviewers working at home and paid a pittance, probably lower than grilling burgers at mcdonalds... talk about keeping standards and quality high ! :)
pittance - i see a pattern forming. thankfully i am not supporting it. simply put, it's not sustainable.
-
It's really become a laughable situation.
I'm sorry to admit this but I think the only reason I still read MSG is to laugh at the people who are still submitting photos and talking about the latest giveaway as "a good deal" that gives them "sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise". Please don't take this personally, guys. Maybe for some people it still makes sense.
At this point I'm just waiting for SS to do something that reduces payouts even further - even by a tiny amount - and then I'll close my account and be done.
-
It's really become a laughable situation.
I'm sorry to admit this but I think the only reason I still read MSG is to laugh at the people who are still submitting photos and talking about the latest giveaway as "a good deal" that gives them "sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise". Please don't take this personally, guys. Maybe for some people it still makes sense.
At this point I'm just waiting for SS to do something that reduces payouts even further - even by a tiny amount - and then I'll close my account and be done.
this post is laughable. you only come to MSG is to laugh at people for the latest giveaway but you still keep your account at SS as if you are not one of the people you laugh at. at least you can laugh at yourself.
-
It's really become a laughable situation.
I'm sorry to admit this but I think the only reason I still read MSG is to laugh at the people who are still submitting photos and talking about the latest giveaway as "a good deal" that gives them "sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise". Please don't take this personally, guys. Maybe for some people it still makes sense.
At this point I'm just waiting for SS to do something that reduces payouts even further - even by a tiny amount - and then I'll close my account and be done.
this post is laughable. you only come to MSG is to laugh at people for the latest giveaway but you still keep your account at SS as if you are not one of the people you laugh at. at least you can laugh at yourself.
I stopped contributing over a year ago. Maybe I should just go ahead and close it now. But I thought it would be more fun to wait for SS to make some "exciting announcement" of a reduction in payments, and then close my account in protest.
-
It's really become a laughable situation.
I'm sorry to admit this but I think the only reason I still read MSG is to laugh at the people who are still submitting photos and talking about the latest giveaway as "a good deal" that gives them "sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise". Please don't take this personally, guys. Maybe for some people it still makes sense.
At this point I'm just waiting for SS to do something that reduces payouts even further - even by a tiny amount - and then I'll close my account and be done.
I stopped contributing over a year ago. Maybe I should just go ahead and close it now. But I thought it would be more fun to wait for SS to make some "exciting announcement" of a reduction in payments, and then close my account in protest.
this post is laughable. you only come to MSG is to laugh at people for the latest giveaway but you still keep your account at SS as if you are not one of the people you laugh at. at least you can laugh at yourself.
i never opened an account in protest. 0.25c and peaking at 0.38c just doesn't sit right with me. selling 100 photos to make $25-$38 is laughable.
-
unfortunately, Oringer is just a symptom, not THE problem.
He and SS are the final result of the whole boom/bust cycle of the post-internet stock industry, if it wasn't Oringer it would be the other 2-3 top agencies, nothing would change much, even Alamy slashed our fees, we're alone against all of the odds and totally at the mercy of greedy agencies that don't even treat us as respectable and loyal suppliers, we're all taken for granted, we'll never see our buyers face to face, we'll never set foot in a stock agency or shake their hands and have a chat together unless we pay ourself a trip to the biggest stock industry fairs and even so what do you expect ? the top sellers are maybe contributing for 0.1% of SS's archive, you won't be missed if you leave for greener pastures, just as nobody noticed Yuri's departure for Getty.
+100
They are ALL the same!
-
so who's the math genius here...
what is $28 million divided by the number of ss contributors???
expect that to be added to each of our may's earning
as profit-sharing or just plain decent share-the-wealth
with those who really made you rich(er)
p.s. thx arenacreative for the moving ants idea, i like them better than just color and size
$28,000,000 / 70,000+ active contributors = $400
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/25/251362/SSTK%20Investor%20Day%202015-2-26%20Webcast.pdf (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/25/251362/SSTK%20Investor%20Day%202015-2-26%20Webcast.pdf)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fb/e0/22/fbe02231aacd3db3d93119ee61aa135f.jpg)
LOL! Jon can keep his bonus, man... you guys are a bunch of whiners.
-
You can certainly award yourself a premium bonus each year when you have taken care of your business and that includes paying your suppliers sustainable royalty rates.
From the start Jon raised royalties each year and that helped contributors deal with business expenses, inflation etc. When the downturn hit contributors did not complain when Jon failed to raise rates, because we assumed his business had been hit hard by the downturn just like we had.
In reality he was making millions and while doing so he took additional profits our of our naive hides. Until 2008 the majority of contributors did ask for raises each year and would have continued if they had know Jon was making millions more each year using assets we produced and funded.
-
so who's the math genius here...
what is $28 million divided by the number of ss contributors???
expect that to be added to each of our may's earning
as profit-sharing or just plain decent share-the-wealth
with those who really made you rich(er)
p.s. thx arenacreative for the moving ants idea, i like them better than just color and size
$28,000,000 / 70,000+ active contributors = $400
You forgot to include the larger bonus Jon took just after the IPO and the one after that.
And you forgot to add in SSTK stock options at a cost to key players & Insight Venture Capitol of $0.
I quit keeping track months ago, but at that time the key players excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.
If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 that would amount to $1,144,929,800.00
Then you need to add in the millions Jon pulled out soon after the IPO
Given the reality of the situation $400 is way off!
-
The story always changes when a company becomes a publicly traded one, or is headed in that direction. There are a lot of other people Jon Oringer has to try and keep happy now, besides the suppliers. I really don't envy him, his job, or the amount of stuff that must be floating around in his mind on a daily basis. It must be incredibly stressful. If you started the company and wanted to share your bonus with "the help" that would be a really noble thing, and I commend you on that. That isn't how the world always works, unfortunately.
-
Jon was making millions more each year using assets we produced and funded.
one thing is sure, things are not going like this forever !
i'm always keeping an eye on what's going on the other digital markets and they changed big time since a few years.
musicians are now making money with live gigs for instance, writers and journalists are trying any possible way to monetize their work in alternative ways, magazines and newspapers are getting more serious about their online business and it's becoming more common to switch to subscription models.
either that, or their trade will just die, as it happened with photojournalism and the major photojournalist agencies who are now desperate to find a way out.
so, what's in store for stock ? many stockers will leave the industry as it's no longer profitable for them, this will take some time but ultimately the agencies will be impacted where it hurts, in their wallets, and they'll have to find a solution one way or another as there can't be a stock industry if stock photographers can't make a profit.
the "buyers market" time lasted too long already, it's the offspring of the internet and digital revolution but it's still an anomaly and now it reached its apex already as the market is very stable and monopolized by a small bunch of players.
-
I sure wouldn't buy this stock. It's a business that, in the long run, isn't sustainable and will inevitably run its course. We need to always remember that SS is just a middleman in control of a market - they don't produce or create anything, and they add little value. They've abused their position about as far as they can and a reckoning is coming - not for Jon Oringer, but for the investors.
-
80.000.000 $ 70.000 users, 28.000.000$ one person, that means 35% more income everybody, that is too big bonus!
-
They've abused their position about as far as they can and a reckoning is coming - not for Jon Oringer, but for the investors.
unfortunately greed and arrogance are the way marketers operate in pretty much any industry i've seen first hand.
there's nothing, nothing we can do about it.
these guys would sell their own mother, let alone our photos.
they've also no respect for suppliers or buyers or products whatsoever and they think to be smarter than us since it's so easy for them to make money while staying at the top of the pyramid scheme and yeah they don't make good friends too, i've many friends in sales and they're all full of sh-it from top to bottom, once they open their mouth about pretty much any topic you start smelling a tu-rd .. this is the world we're living in unfortunately and it's going to get worse ...
-
Scott and others always said that the price point and royalties where balanced and that customers seem to appreciate the pricing. They wouldn't give us a raise or increase prices they thought they had the right balance. A few weeks back they raised prices but not royalties. And now they give 28 million to a person who already has 1.2B$.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions from that.
-
Scott and others always said that the price point and royalties where balanced and that customers seem to appreciate the pricing. They wouldn't give us a raise or increase prices they thought they had the right balance. A few weeks back they raised prices but not royalties. And now they give 28 million to a person who already has 1.2B$.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions from that.
Very true... plus customers have no idea who is getting how much from this game, and they clearly don't care as long as they get good product or service.
-
the price point and royalties where balanced and that customers seem to appreciate the pricing.
of course they do, it's a buyer's marke now.
high quality images have never been cheaper as today.
-
Very true... plus customers have no idea who is getting how much from this game, and they clearly don't care as long as they get good product or service.
the game is rigged, even if we start a boycott campaign it would be met with scorn and we would told we're stupid to sell for low prices and that we're the ones digging our own grave ... it's the same in any other digital markets, authors and creatives are blamed if they do and damned if they dont and they're also accused of being greedy and lazy on top of all the other sh-it buyers will find any possible excuse to rationalize and justify impossibly low prices just as they do when buying clothes made for 1$ in the third world .. ask anyone what they think about kids earning 80$ in textile factories in south east asia and people will say it's their fault and they should buy more condoms and stop breeding like rabbits, that's the buyers' logic and it won't change anytime soon and good luck telling them otherwise.
if anything is ever going to change it must start from us, the suppliers.
in any case the market reality will bring down SS where it belongs sooner or later, once investors will realize SS has no way to keep growing fast as they expect and that it peaked already long time ago, look at Twitter losing 25% a few days ago and that's just the start ... FB being next hopefully.
i'm so totally sick of this Ponzi scheme called the Digital Economy and its destructive consequences for creatives and for society as a whole.
the endpoint of this whole rigged game is entire cities revolting and protesting due to lack of jobs and security just like it's happening now in Baltimore, and stockers and anyone into digital products is next on the list if we're no longer in the position to earn a living.
we're reaching the point a portfolio of 10K images is barely the minimum requirement to stay afloat living in a cheap country, let alone living in London or Tokyo.
are they planning to kill Stock altogether ? because if that;s their plan it's working like a charm, even if you're on Getty or Corbis.
guess why here it's full of Filipino bands playing cover songs of the Beatles and other hits from the 70s, as good music is just not produced anymore and they're condemned to play the golden oldies over and over ... same fate for photography once the money dries up, look at photojournalism good luck finding a single decent reportage from the earthquake in Kathmandu, just the usual Reuters-style shots here and there, even the fall of the temples in Durbar Square has been taken with a phone by a random tourist and shown worldwide on the medias giving him nothing back not even a credit probably .. so long and thanks for all the fish eh ?
it's a mercyless and self destructing market at this point, especially fueled by buyers who consume and consume content like it was candies without stopping for a second to think how much it takes to make a decent shot and what's the amount of work and skills involved.
sorry for ranting again but crooks like Oringer are a textbook case of the actual Cabal running the stock industry.
-
sorry for ranting again but crooks like Oringer are a textbook case of the actual Cabal running the stock industry.
so maybe those in the city of ss can get someone connection with the talkshows and other inverstigative shows , get oringer on stage and get the host and audience to drill him
on how he makes his money. even comparing him to the 3rd world coffee pickers and child labor
trade.
but who has the b*lls to pick on such a person who is getting grants and all that???
-
what is the point of playing victim? SS offers everyone the same sh!tty deal and you a) agree to it or b) don't agree to it. but to incessantly whine about it after the fact makes no sense at all. you and you alone chose to agree to those pathetic terms or you and you alone chose not to agree to those terms - nobody forced you to agree to those terms. in my world it's called being an adult and being responsible for your actions. i am not a fan of SS or Oringer for that matter, but i sure as hell am not dumb enough to "agree" to his offerings hence i am not the victim. just sayin.
-
but who has the b*lls to pick on such a person who is getting grants and all that???
nobody.
in the West once you're a billionaire you're untouchable, and any criticism would backfire.
-
Lol at Shudderstock. So your agencies don't give you a reason to bitch and moan and therefore you come to a microstock forum to bitch and moan over something you are no part of. LMAO.
-
nobody forced you to agree to those terms.
sure but SS is now the dominant and monopolistic force in the microstock industry.
leaving SS means pretty much leaving microstock altogether, and the other agencies dont pay any better.
as much as my portfolio is better suited for RM editorial i can't deny i've lots of stuff that is selling decently on micros and never sold once on RM, so what can i do ? what are my options ?
of course we should all leave SS in droves but there are no longer "greener pastures" around.
-
Lol at Shudderstock. So your agencies don't give you a reason to bitch and moan and therefore you come to a microstock forum to bitch and moan over something you are no part of. LMAO.
i am no part of microstock? already you are making assumptions without anything to support your misinformed claim. and to keep things on track here, my agencies don't pay me the pittance SS pays out. so let's assume here that i am on SS and peak out at the 0.38 threshold of offer, and compare it to my average of $10 on another microstock site of which i belong, that would be 26 downloads at SS for every 1 on the other agency. bitch and moan? for sure, $10 royalty is still too * cheap.
also my point was that with any luck you made an adult decision of sound mind to accept the sh!t royalty rates on offer at SS, but you still need to not face the facts and shift the blame to Oringer and others. i guess it was our fault you agreed to those terms, let me guess you were under duress?
Help me out. Why do people move in next to an airport and then complain about the airplanes?
This completely blows my mind. Are they so compulsive that they go through the arduous process of purchasing a home and miss the fact that there are airplanes regularly flying overhead?
-
nobody forced you to agree to those terms.
sure but SS is now the dominant and monopolistic force in the microstock industry.
leaving SS means pretty much leaving microstock altogether, and the other agencies dont pay any better.
as much as my portfolio is better suited for RM editorial i can't deny i've lots of stuff that is selling decently on micros and never sold once on RM, so what can i do ? what are my options ?
of course we should all leave SS in droves but there are no longer "greener pastures" around.
not sure what your options are, and i really think there are lots of options out there. i submit to two sites and make a full time living, and a lot of my work it not that far of from yours i would guess.
so if you are happy selling 5-6 photos at the uber high rate on offer at SS just to buy a plate of pad thai, then go for it. i personally could not survive on that royalty amount. sure if i did not know any better and it was a hobby that would make sense, but this is my main gig, and SS simply is not sustainable for me.
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
-
Shudderstock does it make a difference? You have nothing to moan about but you keep pissing and moaning here, giving out to people. I can see why the others complain, even agree. You just seem to like svcking lemons.
-
I would like to know what mcro pays $10 royalty?
-
Istock
-
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
in a perfect world i should just focus on Fine Art and start selling prints at art fairs and art galleries, i know, but for many reasons things aren't still going in that direction :(
-
Well he only gets the money in 2019 if he stays and if the share price goes up to $161.88 on average in a certain time period (good luck with that). It's basically a shout of confidence to shareholders/investors saying Oringer is staying and don't worry, your investment is safe with us. I think the reality is the honeymoon period is over and investors are going to wonder when are they getting a return on their shares since they don't pay a dividend. When the full news comes out that all Adobe products will feature Fotolia images to sell and nobody else, you'll see Shutterstock take a hit. At today's price of $67 it's still way over valued with a P/E of 111. (Apple stock has a P/E of about 15) Shutterstock's book value is only about $6-7.
The only way I see Oringer can improve is to take over the Editorial market from Getty, or start to buy up other microstock suppliers to increase the "value". I any case, if you're a contributor, you're not going to see much of a raise in the future. Yeah, stock options stink, but this $28 million bonus is like two millionaires betting a dollar on a golf game. Mostly show. Expect to see more press releases in the future.
-
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
in a perfect world i should just focus on Fine Art and start selling prints at art fairs and art galleries, i know, but for many reasons things aren't still going in that direction :(
in a perfect world , i wouldn't be flipping burgers and making my BME with overtime .
plus i get to eat fries free, since i won't buy much with 32 cts (per dl from ss)
-
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
I most businesses you are doing fine if you can break even in a couple of years.
Last year, I went in Canada, mainly for fun but also to attend a SS conference. Today, all my trip expenses are paid back (hotel, transport, parking, food) through all these microstock micro-sales. I'm making a profit for every photo taken back then and sold today for $0.38
Worried for $7.50? Why would people expect overnight payback from microstock more than in other businesses?
-
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
I most businesses you are doing fine if you can break even in a couple of years.
Last year, I went in Canada, mainly for fun but also to attend a SS conference. Today, all my trip expenses are paid back (hotel, transport, parking, food) through all these microstock micro-sales. I'm making a profit for every photo taken back then and sold today for $0.38
Worried for $7.50? Why would people expect overnight payback from microstock more than in other businesses?
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
-
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
I most businesses you are doing fine if you can break even in a couple of years.
Last year, I went in Canada, mainly for fun but also to attend a SS conference. Today, all my trip expenses are paid back (hotel, transport, parking, food) through all these microstock micro-sales. I'm making a profit for every photo taken back then and sold today for $0.38
Worried for $7.50? Why would people expect overnight payback from microstock more than in other businesses?
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
So your intention is that one single shoot pays for all your expenses for equipment, internet, rent and so on?
That certainly is a challenging goal....
-
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
-
Now you're talking! I shot 120,000 on my 40-D before the shutter died. So I keep the lenses for the rest of the cameras. I get paid enough for the rent, internet, software, and everything, for one sale. I like the way you think. :)
Why hasn't anyone pointed out, Oringer gets paid $1 a year, owns 45% of the company that he started, and hasn't gotten this grant yet, because it's based on performance? The other guy gets $1 million a year, owns 100% of the company and if he goes IPO will get millions and million more?
So one is a bad guy for having a high income on paper and high net worth, maybe in the future, a bonus. And the other has been getting paid a million dollars a year, and he's a good guy for giving his staff, a living wage. He's written up in the news as some kind of saint and people here are bashing Jon for being successful?
REALLY?
Yes, we had a large part in making the agency Shutterstock what it is and a success. We could use a raise, in fact most people here, have earned a raise. But the people attacking SS and Jon at every opportunity are being one sided, closed minded, antagonists.
So your intention is that one single shoot pays for all your expenses for equipment, internet, rent and so on?
That certainly is a challenging goal....
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
Maybe this is a sign that you should consider something other than Microstock to earn a living?
-
the last shoot i went to do for stock, hence totally on spec, the parking fee alone was $7.50 for a couple of hours, not to mention my time and equipment blah blah blah, it makes no sense to me to have to sell one photo from that shoot 20- 30 times just to pay for the parking.
I most businesses you are doing fine if you can break even in a couple of years.
Last year, I went in Canada, mainly for fun but also to attend a SS conference. Today, all my trip expenses are paid back (hotel, transport, parking, food) through all these microstock micro-sales. I'm making a profit for every photo taken back then and sold today for $0.38
Worried for $7.50? Why would people expect overnight payback from microstock more than in other businesses?
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
OK ...so what's THE SOLUTION, Shudderstock?
-
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
You get one shot when you go on a shoot?
Seriously. I'm not a photographer, but I would expect to get a lot more than one shot up online if I were going out of my way to pay for parking, etc., on a location. If you get 48 decent shots (I have no idea if that's realistic) they'd each have to sell once. I would think most people's images average more than one sale per year on SS, and you'd also have to add sales on the other sites in because SS has no exclusivity.
-
"Maybe this is a sign that you should consider something other than Microstock to earn a living?"
Why would I do that? So I can go get a day job? No thanks. I make a fairly decent living shooting stock/microstock. I just don't waste my time on certain sites that I don't agree with the royalty structure. From the posts above it is noted why.
"OK ...so what's THE SOLUTION, Shudderstock?"
We all have to find that answer for ourselves, and for me it is not selling a photo 20-30 times to just pay for parking.
-
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
You get one shot when you go on a shoot?
Seriously. I'm not a photographer, but I would expect to get a lot more than one shot up online if I were going out of my way to pay for parking, etc., on a location. If you get 48 decent shots (I have no idea if that's realistic) they'd each have to sell once. I would think most people's images average more than one sale per year on SS, and you'd also have to add sales on the other sites in because SS has no exclusivity.
have you ever heard of the saying "quality over quantity"? i am ruthless at editing and very selective in what i submit. perhaps that is one reason i survive in this game.
-
If you have a well planned high quality shoot, you get a fair deal of ODDs, ELs, and SODs on it. One EL pays 4 times for parking. 3 ODDs pay for parking. One good SOD pays 10 times for parking. Dont focus on 38 cent per DL, because thats just simply not true. Thats like saying for IS you can only count TS subs. Plus, you can add the images to as much agencies as you like, getting out an even higher RPD.
I have one photo on SS that paid for my tickets to Chicago and back. All the rest is gravy.
-
Am I allowed to agree 1000% or am I locked in at real math, just 100%?
Yes to both, we all make individual choices. And if the expenses don't meet our income needs, there's a serious problem.
The you wasn't meant as YOU personally but any person in general, who's finding they are unhappy and not making enough to live, as a full time Microstock artist. Time to consider other alternatives.
"Maybe this is a sign that you should consider something other than Microstock to earn a living?"
Why would I do that? So I can go get a day job? No thanks. I make a fairly decent living shooting stock/microstock. I just don't waste my time on certain sites that I don't agree with the royalty structure. From the posts above it is noted why.
"OK ...so what's THE SOLUTION, Shudderstock?"
We all have to find that answer for ourselves, and for me it is not selling a photo 20-30 times to just pay for parking.
-
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
I'm not missing the point.
You are the one that moans for a $7.50 parking.
FYI, I paid $70 last weekend for transport, tolls, parking, entrance fees and I'm certain that all these will be amortized within a year.
I'm restating that, if given a couple of years, you can't make enough from microstock to justify the expenses required by your $7.50 parking photo-shoot, then you are doing something wrong.
-
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
You get one shot when you go on a shoot?
Seriously. I'm not a photographer, but I would expect to get a lot more than one shot up online if I were going out of my way to pay for parking, etc., on a location. If you get 48 decent shots (I have no idea if that's realistic) they'd each have to sell once. I would think most people's images average more than one sale per year on SS, and you'd also have to add sales on the other sites in because SS has no exclusivity.
have you ever heard of the saying "quality over quantity"? i am ruthless at editing and very selective in what i submit. perhaps that is one reason i survive in this game.
Perhaps. But unfortunately you're now competing against mass quantities of really high quality shots.
And if your approach is working for you, why so angry? Forget Shutterstock and keep ruthlessly editing. Some of us have found it works to take a different approach. To each her own.
-
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
I'm not missing the point.
You are the one that moans for a $7.50 parking.
FYI, I paid $70 last weekend for transport, tolls, parking, entrance fees and I'm certain that all these will be amortized within a year.
I'm restating that, if given a couple of years, you can't make enough from microstock to justify the expenses required by your $7.50 parking photo-shoot, then you are doing something wrong.
what part of i have no interest in selling an image 20-30 times on SS to break even on my parking are you not getting? i sell an image once elsewhere and turn an immediate profit. it's a no brainer as far as i can see. it works well for me, and it seems to really p!ss you off.
-
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
twisting? you brought up needing to make $5000+ to break even on that shoot.
Now if that shoot leaves you with "one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots", well good luck breaking even with that on IS.
And how does that match your "quality over quantity" argument?
I get you don't want to sell on SS due to their subs model. Fine. Your choice. But if you pull completely unrealistic numbers out of the air to support your claim that SS is evil, don't expect others not to challenge that.
-
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
I'm not missing the point.
You are the one that moans for a $7.50 parking.
FYI, I paid $70 last weekend for transport, tolls, parking, entrance fees and I'm certain that all these will be amortized within a year.
I'm restating that, if given a couple of years, you can't make enough from microstock to justify the expenses required by your $7.50 parking photo-shoot, then you are doing something wrong.
what part of i have no interest in selling an image 20-30 times on SS to break even on my parking are you not getting? i sell an image once elsewhere and turn an immediate profit. it's a no brainer as far as i can see. it works well for me, and it seems to really p!ss you off.
Not at all, my dear. You are the one p!$$ed off. And btw, it only takes me 7 downloads from SS alone to pay your $7.50 parking ;)
-
@dirkr...
what do you think? fun twisting things isn't it. to simplify it for you, let's just put in the parking and time. still with me? total expenses assuming you will pay yourself a below minimum wage of $10 per hour is $47.50, assuming you have no other expenses at all and don't need to eat.
so let's aim high here assuming ss pays you $1 per download on average, that means you have to sell that shot 48 times to break even or perhaps let's just say 55 times pre-taxes.
now that is only for one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots. pray tell how that shot alone will sell 55 times the first year without just plain and simple dumb luck.
i doubt very much the average shot sells 55 times per year on SS.
twisting? you brought up needing to make $5000+ to break even on that shoot.
Now if that shoot leaves you with "one basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots", well good luck breaking even with that on IS.
And how does that match your "quality over quantity" argument?
I get you don't want to sell on SS due to their subs model. Fine. Your choice. But if you pull completely unrealistic numbers out of the air to support your claim that SS is evil, don't expect others not to challenge that.
you seem to take things literally. i also get you don't have a full understanding of the real expense of shooting full time. also, most shots these days are "basic nothing new not inventing the wheel there are thousands of them out there skyline shots"
so pray tell, are you making a full time living from shooting stock?
so how much would it cost you to shoot that one blah shot? include everything, all the outlay of expense. even if you went out and shot and uploaded every three days, just your equipment expense alone for the year based on my $5000 theory would still cost you $50 per day in expense, assuming you paid for your gear in cash and don't have a bunch of it on credit card.
-
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
I'm not missing the point.
You are the one that moans for a $7.50 parking.
FYI, I paid $70 last weekend for transport, tolls, parking, entrance fees and I'm certain that all these will be amortized within a year.
I'm restating that, if given a couple of years, you can't make enough from microstock to justify the expenses required by your $7.50 parking photo-shoot, then you are doing something wrong.
what part of i have no interest in selling an image 20-30 times on SS to break even on my parking are you not getting? i sell an image once elsewhere and turn an immediate profit. it's a no brainer as far as i can see. it works well for me, and it seems to really p!ss you off.
Not at all, my dear. You are the one p!$$ed off. And btw, it only takes me 7 downloads from SS alone to pay your $7.50 parking ;)
you are doing much better than most then, cause on another thread people are suggesting 0.55 - 0.77 average, so you are apparently doing much better. but still 7 times to pay for parking? wow.
-
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
I'm not missing the point.
You are the one that moans for a $7.50 parking.
FYI, I paid $70 last weekend for transport, tolls, parking, entrance fees and I'm certain that all these will be amortized within a year.
I'm restating that, if given a couple of years, you can't make enough from microstock to justify the expenses required by your $7.50 parking photo-shoot, then you are doing something wrong.
what part of i have no interest in selling an image 20-30 times on SS to break even on my parking are you not getting? i sell an image once elsewhere and turn an immediate profit. it's a no brainer as far as i can see. it works well for me, and it seems to really p!ss you off.
You mean an immediate profit on your parking? That does an EL on SS as well. One sale. But its not really a profit is it, because you need to factor in all cost of the shoot.
-
so how much would it cost you to shoot that one blah shot? include everything, all the outlay of expense. even if you went out and shot and uploaded every three days, just your equipment expense alone for the year based on my $5000 theory would still cost you $50 per day in expense, assuming you paid for your gear in cash and don't have a bunch of it on credit card.
Your equipment is written off in 8 years, not in one year (at least in Ireland).
So your 5000$ equipment cost you 625$ per year, 1,7$ per day
-
I think you might be missing the point here.
Only parking was $7.50 as an example that 20-30 sales on one site would break even on that one expense alone. Don't forget to add in your travel and shoot time lets say 3 hours @ $10 per hour = $30 (a silly low wage). Post production upload time 1 hour @ $10 per hour, 2 hours if you are uploading to multiple sites. Camera expense, computer expense, internet expense, software expense, electricity expense, rent expense, etc we can just call that around a ridiculously low minimum of $5,000, don't forget to add the gas expense, the car insurance etc.
So you need to make at least $5047 just to break even, but really need to make at least $6000 ++ before taxes, and you have not even eaten yet. even at the so called average RPD i keep hearing about at at SS of around 0.77 that is still 6500 downloads. even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
if you can turn a profit in one year on a trip to canada which is not cheap and most certainly more expensive than my drive downtown, then perhaps you'd like to share your secret cause i really don't get your math at all.
I'm not missing the point.
You are the one that moans for a $7.50 parking.
FYI, I paid $70 last weekend for transport, tolls, parking, entrance fees and I'm certain that all these will be amortized within a year.
I'm restating that, if given a couple of years, you can't make enough from microstock to justify the expenses required by your $7.50 parking photo-shoot, then you are doing something wrong.
what part of i have no interest in selling an image 20-30 times on SS to break even on my parking are you not getting? i sell an image once elsewhere and turn an immediate profit. it's a no brainer as far as i can see. it works well for me, and it seems to really p!ss you off.
Not at all, my dear. You are the one p!$$ed off. And btw, it only takes me 7 downloads from SS alone to pay your $7.50 parking ;)
you are doing much better than most then, cause on another thread people are suggesting 0.55 - 0.77 average, so you are apparently doing much better. but still 7 times to pay for parking? wow.
Then you should have said, 10-14 downloads for your $7.50 parking, not 20-30 as you suggest.
Why such exagerations?
-
@U...
i stand corrected on that one, as i originally posted based on the .25-.38 thing, so yes 10-14 which is still a joke to pay for parking.
@S...
i only wish my cameras lasted 8 years, two is the average for me, but then i work those puppies hard. my gear on average costs me around 2k per year on average, which is 7 downloads every day at SS or 0.5 per day on IS (based on reported averages of 0.77 at SS and what i get on average of $10 at IS) just to break even. that does not cover the parking fee to pick up my gear LOL.
oh and congrats on your day.
-
@U...
i stand corrected on that one, as i originally posted based on the .25-.38 thing, so yes 10-14 which is still a joke to pay for parking.
@S...
i only wish my cameras lasted 8 years, two is the average for me, but then i work those puppies hard. my gear on average costs me around 2k per year on average.
oh and congrats on your day.
Good. So it is OK to cut all your numbers in half, since you have about 100% exagerations built in?
-
@U...
i stand corrected on that one, as i originally posted based on the .25-.38 thing, so yes 10-14 which is still a joke to pay for parking.
@S...
i only wish my cameras lasted 8 years, two is the average for me, but then i work those puppies hard. my gear on average costs me around 2k per year on average.
oh and congrats on your day.
Good. So it is OK to cut all your numbers in half, since you have about 100% exagerations built in?
it's called acknowledgement to an error based on other information in which i posted, and acceptance and correction based on new information, but never was there any exaggeration as it was clearly based on 0.28 - 0.35 as posted for royalty rates, then it was amended to reflect the 0.55 - 0.77 suggested averages on another thread.
so if you acknowledge that can you cut back on your 100% drama?
-
@U...
i stand corrected on that one, as i originally posted based on the .25-.38 thing, so yes 10-14 which is still a joke to pay for parking.
@S...
i only wish my cameras lasted 8 years, two is the average for me, but then i work those puppies hard. my gear on average costs me around 2k per year on average, which is 7 downloads every day at SS or 0.5 per day on IS (based on reported averages of 0.77 at SS and what i get on average of $10 at IS) just to break even. that does not cover the parking fee to pick up my gear LOL.
oh and congrats on your day.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You spend a lot of time and money on one shot and sell it occasionally. Microstockers spend a lot less on many shots and sell them often. I have seasonal images that sell 20+ times a day just on Shutterstock. If you count PP and subs they sell a dozen times a day on iStock. There are illustrators and photographers who sell a lot more than I do. Macro and micro are two different supply and demand chains.
-
Here's something to speculate about...
Let's go a few years into the future. Imagine that most of today's contributors have long since given up on microstock - even newbies and hobbyists no longer find it interesting or fun. The huge archives of SS are starting to look tired and dated. Buyers are complaining, sales are declining. The people running SS decide they need to get fresh material. And the only way to do it is to actually find some capable photographers and start paying them to do stock - and paying them enough to make it worthwhile.
How much would they have to pay?
-
Global marketplace...they'd look to the countries where people can make a good living with little money. And based on their history, SS would conduct research to determine how much pay is worth their while.
-
even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
Is your RPD actually still $10? Given that what I've seen from other exclusives, around 70% of downloads are coming from subscriptions these days for them as well, paying $0.75 or $2.50. As those are added only later, people tend to only look at their current month and forget to count in all those subs sales when calculating averages. I am seeing RPDs of around $4-5 on the 40% payout level these days as more realistic.
I guess $10 is still possible if you get lots of images into S+ and mirrored to Getty. But in that case I wonder why you would bother with iStock as images in that consistent quality could sell better in macrostock without those cheap subscription sales that require you to get 10 downloads to pay your parking fees.
-
The grant included $21.6 million in options and $5.87 million in restricted stock that would vest in 2019 if he remains employed and achieves certain performance requirements, according to its latest proxy filing.
If I compare these prices to what I still see
199 euro for 750 month = 0.27 c/i
165 euro for 350 month = 0.47 c/i
Shutterstock gave themselves a 20 cent raise per image. And nuttin' for us. So it seems.
New pricing?
([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24635.0;attach=13592;image[/url])
Old pricing
Stiffed us and now Shutterstock is sneaking in hidden royalty decreases.
(http://s1.postimg.org/pbzvx53nj/0_Limit.jpg)
-
even on my RPD on IS as exclusive of around $10 that is still 541 downloads from just that one shoot to break even.
Is your RPD actually still $10? Given that what I've seen from other exclusives, around 70% of downloads are coming from subscriptions these days for them as well, paying $0.75 or $2.50. As those are added only later, people tend to only look at their current month and forget to count in all those subs sales when calculating averages. I am seeing RPDs of around $4-5 on the 40% payout level these days as more realistic.
I guess $10 is still possible if you get lots of images into S+ and mirrored to Getty. But in that case I wonder why you would bother with iStock as images in that consistent quality could sell better in macrostock without those cheap subscription sales that require you to get 10 downloads to pay your parking fees.
RPD including credit, subs and getty sales, in my case, goes to 5.5 dollars. That's low, and not enough to finance even small productions, but it's even lower at other sites.
-
Thank you for confirming the facts. He makes $1 a year.
The grant included $21.6 million in options and $5.87 million in restricted stock that would vest in 2019 if he remains employed and achieves certain performance requirements, according to its latest proxy filing.
-
Thank you for confirming the facts. He makes $1 a year.
The grant included $21.6 million in options and $5.87 million in restricted stock that would vest in 2019 if he remains employed and achieves certain performance requirements, according to its latest proxy filing.
Why Tax-Smart Billionaires Work For $1
The non-cash equity-based compensation plus $1 salary ensures that the CEO will be looking out for shareholders.
When CEO's earn significant compensation from their companies paid almost entirely in stock options, they do so to make sure that the CEO will focus on inflating the value of the company’s stock. Compensation tied to performance is a good deal for both company and exec for multiple reasons.
It is also a tax game. The IRS has labeled excessively high CEO compensation unreasonable and as a result they have levied extra taxes against them. And excessive salary's can’t be deducted from the company’s taxes. In fact, most public companies face a limit on pay deductions of $1 million per employee.
Problems always have solutions and the bean counters and attorneys have devised the $1 wage to avoid the compensation tax problem.
When an executive takes $1 cash compensation plus considerable non-cash compensation like options and stock, the IRS levies significantly less taxes. Companies leverage this tax advantage by paying key players with options, stock and dividends not as pay, the tax rates on these are better than a straight forward salary. What’s more, the taxes on non-cash equity-based stock compensation are shared by the employer and the employee.
-
Thank you for confirming the facts. He makes $1 a year.
The grant included $21.6 million in options and $5.87 million in restricted stock that would vest in 2019 if he remains employed and achieves certain performance requirements, according to its latest proxy filing.
Why Tax-Smart Billionaires Work For $1
taxation is just another scheme between govt and millionaires. it's just another rip-off in the modern society , like microstock, all on the backs of the common working stiffs.
the govt gives all sorts of tax-credits and grants to corporate while the majority working poor
works his/her a%4se off and is tax each time he/she make a little more.
ask any working person in his own mom/pop business or home business etc and they will say the same thing. each time they get an extra buck in their pocket, the tax man comes on their ar$e.
this is not the case for over-paid CEO working for $1. there is always a tax scheme to help the billionaire but there is little to help you, your parents, your grandparents,etc..
they (the common-people, working poor as they call it in many countries) are the ones who work so these CEOs and big corporation get all their tax-savings.
since when have you heard of any grant for the hard-working commoner???
-
I won't quote the whole gbalex answer, but that's exactly what's going on. Jon still has to make the goals, but with 45% of the company, and what he's already earned, he's not hurting.
Both instances are the same situation. The other guy owns the company and makes $1 million a year, he's figuring a way to reduce his tax liability. Takes a pay cut.
I like the employee benefits and the $70,000 salary for everyone. But behind all that goodness and publicity, it's all about avoiding higher taxes.
Now about that SS artists raise? ??? They should want to keep the good suppliers that they have.
-
Can you imagine what would have happened if they had given Jon 20 mil instead, introduced image exclusivity and divided the remaining 8 mil $8000 prize for each of the 1000 top selling exclusive images of the year?
Well, my guess is that after two years there wouldn't be much left of their competition. So how is this the best way for SS to spend their profits?
-
I have always liked SS, sometimes more, sometimes less. But now they seem to be on the wrong track in many ways.
-
I have always liked SS, sometimes more, sometimes less. But now they seem to be on the wrong track in many ways.
I agree with this. Still hoping that they change to their old ways, but history at other agencies tells us that is not likely to happen. :-\
-
well, what else could they ever had in store for us once they become the leader in microstock and are growing 33% per year with investors in Wall Street throwing billions at them ?
greed and loss of touch with reality is the natural consequence of all this, as much as we're here complaining about SS paying the lowest fees in the industry i'm sure Oringer and his gang of cro-oks are not even aware of whats going on for contributors, they probably think we're paid fairly well actually !
these guys dont reason with the logic of a photographer, it's all about money and quick profits, that's their only goal and the only reason for SS to exist, in their eyes we're merely a cost, a nuisance, a necessary evil ...
-
well, what else could they ever had in store for us once they become the leader in microstock and are growing 33% per year with investors in Wall Street throwing billions at them ?
greed and loss of touch with reality is the natural consequence of all this, as much as we're here complaining about SS paying the lowest fees in the industry i'm sure Oringer and his gang of cro-oks are not even aware of whats going on for contributors, they probably think we're paid fairly well actually !
these guys dont reason with the logic of a photographer, it's all about money and quick profits, that's their only goal and the only reason for SS to exist, in their eyes we're merely a cost, a nuisance, a necessary evil ...
I agree, except the lowest paying now goes to IS with their RPD on Thinkstock
-
Thank you for confirming the facts. He makes $1 a year.
The grant included $21.6 million in options and $5.87 million in restricted stock that would vest in 2019 if he remains employed and achieves certain performance requirements, according to its latest proxy filing.
Why Tax-Smart Billionaires Work For $1
taxation is just another scheme between govt and millionaires. it's just another rip-off in the modern society , like microstock, all on the backs of the common working stiffs.
the govt gives all sorts of tax-credits and grants to corporate while the majority working poor
works his/her a%4se off and is tax each time he/she make a little more.
ask any working person in his own mom/pop business or home business etc and they will say the same thing. each time they get an extra buck in their pocket, the tax man comes on their ar$e.
this is not the case for over-paid CEO working for $1. there is always a tax scheme to help the billionaire but there is little to help you, your parents, your grandparents,etc..
they (the common-people, working poor as they call it in many countries) are the ones who work so these CEOs and big corporation get all their tax-savings.
since when have you heard of any grant for the hard-working commoner???
I always find it hard to know what side to fall on in a tax debate. It reminds me of the west wing episode with the "swimming pools for millionaires" speech.
While it is true that a lot of the super rich and big business dodge their tax, it is also true that the top end of earners pay the vast majority of tax overall (I can't remember the exact stat but it's something like the top 10% of earners pay 90% of the tax).
So the vast majority of us are in effect subsidised by the rich, we get far more out of the state than we pay in. I have public healthcare and state schools in my country. The rich pay for the doctors to look after my children and send them to school, I am always wary of tarring everyone better off with the same brush. As I get older I can appreciate human nature more. A lot of people resent the idea of being net beneficiaries because it makes them feel inferior, most people would rather be in the position where they can lord it over others that they are paying more tax or complain they are "self made" and the tax man is ripping them off. Neither thing is very attractive really
-
well, what else could they ever had in store for us once they become the leader in microstock and are growing 33% per year with investors in Wall Street throwing billions at them ?
greed and loss of touch with reality is the natural consequence of all this, as much as we're here complaining about SS paying the lowest fees in the industry i'm sure Oringer and his gang of cro-oks are not even aware of whats going on for contributors, they probably think we're paid fairly well actually !
these guys dont reason with the logic of a photographer, it's all about money and quick profits, that's their only goal and the only reason for SS to exist, in their eyes we're merely a cost, a nuisance, a necessary evil ...
Correct. And one of the reasons they are able to do this is that many, and I mean MANY, photographers have migrated to SS over the last few years due specifically to leaving exclusivity. They are in a complete power position to behave the way they do, so this "new supplier treatment plan" triumphs "sharing in success. Yes, sharing in success. We helped make SS what it is. We upped our game, we invested in gear and practice, we uploaded bigger and bigger files (because they encouraged us to in order to maximize our own success), we cheered them, we called them the best thing in micro stock, we dumped on 123, IS, DP, FT as greedy schmucks and practically put SS on a pedestal. Now? They are in a power position and publicly traded. NOT A GOOD RECIPE for suppliers.
I will state my opinion once more: Scott Braut left for a reason linked to the above scenario AND............more commission eroding strategies are coming.
-
Well said and once the mass of IS defectors have hit .38 they will start to understand that the new bump carrot is a temporary mirage.
They can and will pull the search plug, just as they did with the contributors who were instrumental in helping shutterstock achieve success.
-
well, what else could they ever had in store for us once they become the leader in microstock and are growing 33% per year with investors in Wall Street throwing billions at them ?
greed and loss of touch with reality is the natural consequence of all this, as much as we're here complaining about SS paying the lowest fees in the industry i'm sure Oringer and his gang of cro-oks are not even aware of whats going on for contributors, they probably think we're paid fairly well actually !
these guys dont reason with the logic of a photographer, it's all about money and quick profits, that's their only goal and the only reason for SS to exist, in their eyes we're merely a cost, a nuisance, a necessary evil ...
Correct. And one of the reasons they are able to do this is that many, and I mean MANY, photographers have migrated to SS over the last few years due specifically to leaving exclusivity. They are in a complete power position to behave the way they do, so this "new supplier treatment plan" triumphs "sharing in success. Yes, sharing in success. We helped make SS what it is. We upped our game, we invested in gear and practice, we uploaded bigger and bigger files (because they encouraged us to in order to maximize our own success), we cheered them, we called them the best thing in micro stock, we dumped on 123, IS, DP, FT as greedy schmucks and practically put SS on a pedestal. Now? They are in a power position and publicly traded. NOT A GOOD RECIPE for suppliers.
I will state my opinion once more: Scott Braut left for a reason linked to the above scenario AND............more commission eroding strategies are coming.
Totally agree about Scott. When the guys with integrity start leaving, you know some bad sh*t is coming. Same happened when Rob Sylvan left Istock.
-
well, what else could they ever had in store for us once they become the leader in microstock and are growing 33% per year with investors in Wall Street throwing billions at them ?
greed and loss of touch with reality is the natural consequence of all this, as much as we're here complaining about SS paying the lowest fees in the industry i'm sure Oringer and his gang of cro-oks are not even aware of whats going on for contributors, they probably think we're paid fairly well actually !
these guys dont reason with the logic of a photographer, it's all about money and quick profits, that's their only goal and the only reason for SS to exist, in their eyes we're merely a cost, a nuisance, a necessary evil ...
Correct. And one of the reasons they are able to do this is that many, and I mean MANY, photographers have migrated to SS over the last few years due specifically to leaving exclusivity. They are in a complete power position to behave the way they do, so this "new supplier treatment plan" triumphs "sharing in success. Yes, sharing in success. We helped make SS what it is. We upped our game, we invested in gear and practice, we uploaded bigger and bigger files (because they encouraged us to in order to maximize our own success), we cheered them, we called them the best thing in micro stock, we dumped on 123, IS, DP, FT as greedy schmucks and practically put SS on a pedestal. Now? They are in a power position and publicly traded. NOT A GOOD RECIPE for suppliers.
I will state my opinion once more: Scott Braut left for a reason linked to the above scenario AND............more commission eroding strategies are coming.
Totally agree about Scott. When the guys with integrity start leaving, you know some bad sh*t is coming. Same happened when Rob Sylvan left Istock.
Oh yea, forgot about that one. Spot on.
-
well, what else could they ever had in store for us once they become the leader in microstock and are growing 33% per year with investors in Wall Street throwing billions at them ?
greed and loss of touch with reality is the natural consequence of all this, as much as we're here complaining about SS paying the lowest fees in the industry i'm sure Oringer and his gang of cro-oks are not even aware of whats going on for contributors, they probably think we're paid fairly well actually !
these guys dont reason with the logic of a photographer, it's all about money and quick profits, that's their only goal and the only reason for SS to exist, in their eyes we're merely a cost, a nuisance, a necessary evil ...
Correct. And one of the reasons they are able to do this is that many, and I mean MANY, photographers have migrated to SS over the last few years due specifically to leaving exclusivity. They are in a complete power position to behave the way they do, so this "new supplier treatment plan" triumphs "sharing in success. Yes, sharing in success. We helped make SS what it is. We upped our game, we invested in gear and practice, we uploaded bigger and bigger files (because they encouraged us to in order to maximize our own success), we cheered them, we called them the best thing in micro stock, we dumped on 123, IS, DP, FT as greedy schmucks and practically put SS on a pedestal. Now? They are in a power position and publicly traded. NOT A GOOD RECIPE for suppliers.
I will state my opinion once more: Scott Braut left for a reason linked to the above scenario AND............more commission eroding strategies are coming.
I warned everybody over (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961) and over (http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442) and over (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
-
I warned everybody over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772[/url]) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.
-
I warned everybody over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772[/url]) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.
I agree there are some on SS who will still think the site and Jon Oringer walks on water, just the same as the woo yayers thought istock could not do wrong.
But to Paulie, even for us who believed SS would eventually screw us, what were we supposed to do about it? It isn't like we have a lot of options. The big contributor actions only ever got a minority of support, and its come to this anyways. For most of us, once it gets bad enough we have to quit SS, its game over, except for newbs, and some talented hobbiests like Martha who produce excellent work and don't need the money.
-
For most of us, once it gets bad enough we have to quit SS, its game over,
we must always keep our eyes open, just yesterday i heard interesting things from a friend of mine about freelance photographers he's using for events, supermarket billboards, corporate, etc .. these guys are totally generic and will shoot pretty much anything, no idea about quality but it seems they're in high demand because of their flexibility and cheap rates .. just to give a practical example of alternatives to Stock ... problem is .. are we willing to jump into such jobs ? personaly i would find a well paid office job instead but that's just my opinion.
i think many of us are in Stock exactly to avoid working on assignment or shooting weddings.
-
I warned everybody over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772[/url]) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.
stupid is what stupid does. quite frankly, when i first dabbled in microstock in 2007, SS was a no go for me. 0.25 per download then was a shame, and now it's sickening taking inflation into consideration. red flag then, and red flag now. if you have your images for sale there, then you get what you deserve simply cause you placed yourself in that position.
-
Now? They are in a power position and publicly traded. NOT A GOOD RECIPE for suppliers.
yes and yes !
however, there's a big price to pay to earn this power .. they're probably spending at least 50% of their income in advertising and if one day this strategy stops being effective they're basically F'ed just as it happened with iStock once they killed their own brand and alienated both their suppliers and buyers.
now the only option for iStock is a "rebranding" or being merged into a Getty collection, no matter if they spend billions in Ads, it just won't change much.
as for us, the game is rigged and i see no way out, we've just no leverage on pricing, none of the top stock agencies allow us to set any price and selling on PODs looks to be a total waste of time once you consider the real TCO vs ROI involved.
i would love to sell on my own site and/or on PODs setting a minimum price of 50 or 100$ per image but we're in 2015 and it can only work in a few specialized market niches or where you find your own buyers one by one, in which case you will soon realize 50-70% of your budget is spent on promotion and acquiring buyers, your net gains won't be so different from outsourcing your sales to stock agencies in the end unless you're lucky enough to hit a goldmine niche but how long it's going to last ?
all i can see around is that competition is cut throat and due to the actualy economy in the West buyers have all cut their budgets to the bone, not just about photography but pretty much about anything else.
-
I warned everybody over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772[/url]) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.
I agree there are some on SS who will still think the site and Jon Oringer walks on water, just the same as the woo yayers thought istock could not do wrong.
But to Paulie, even for us who believed SS would eventually screw us, what were we supposed to do about it? It isn't like we have a lot of options. The big contributor actions only ever got a minority of support, and its come to this anyways. For most of us, once it gets bad enough we have to quit SS, its game over, except for newbs, and some talented hobbiests like Martha who produce excellent work and don't need the money.
"eventually screw us" they did that from day one. options? don't support it. really simple. all of our work is worth more than what they offer. after all kids, it is only you who chooses to sell yourself short, and Oringer knows that. you got played, that is if you choose to.
-
I warned everybody over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772[/url]) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.
stupid is what stupid does
hmmm .. yeah ... but realistically without microstock the industry would turn to midstock or to some dollar-bin promotions and in any case you would have some form of Subs, not as cheap as they're now but still very cheap.
we can blame micros and greed but in the end the actual downturn is a mirror of the whole economy, the Editorial and Publishing industry is in dire straits since the 90s, it was in deep sh-it well before the internet, digital cameras, photoshop, the 2000 and 2008 bubbles.
should we bet on the final takeover of digital publishing in the next few years ? the death of paper news/magazines/books ? online web sites finally paying good money for quality images ?
this is the big question in my opinion, actually the KEY factor, if most of the content providers are not willing to pay and stick with the cheapest Subs who's going to produce new content, let alone making a living out of Stock ?
moreover, if nothing changes we should expect agencies balancing this dreadful scenario pushing for Midstock or selling non-RF licences, probably coming up with a new kind of licence designed for Online content as the whole idea of RF is totally obsolete nowadays and against the interests of photographers and agencies as well.
they've already squeezed us like a lemon, i say now it's buyers' turn to be scre-wed and if these cheap-as-s buyers expect a new wave of talented shooters in the third world willing to work for a pittance sorry but it's not going to happen as far as i've seen, they're too busy shooting weddings, events, etc no matter if now they've fast ADSL connection and bank accounts and can even write in broken english.
-
I warned everybody over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/interesting-figures-on-getty-and-shutterstock/msg252961/#msg252961[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/change-in-commission-structure-for-123rf-com-contributors/msg243442/#msg243442[/url]) and over ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158772/#msg158772[/url]) again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.
There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.
stupid is what stupid does
hmmm .. yeah ... but realistically without microstock the industry would turn to midstock or to some dollar-bin promotions and in any case you would have some form of Subs, not as cheap as they're now but still very cheap.
we can blame micros and greed but in the end the actual downturn is a mirror of the whole economy, the Editorial and Publishing industry is in dire straits since the 90s, it was in deep sh-it well before the internet, digital cameras, photoshop, the 2000 and 2008 bubbles.
should we bet on the final takeover of digital publishing in the next few years ? the death of paper news/magazines/books ? online web sites finally paying good money for quality images ?
this is the big question in my opinion, actually the KEY factor, if most of the content providers are not willing to pay and stick with the cheapest Subs who's going to produce new content, let alone making a living out of Stock ?
moreover, if nothing changes we should expect agencies balancing this dreadful scenario pushing for Midstock or selling non-RF licences, probably coming up with a new kind of licence designed for Online content as the whole idea of RF is totally obsolete nowadays and against the interests of photographers and agencies as well.
they've already squeezed us like a lemon, i say now it's buyers' turn to be scre-wed and if these cheap-as-s buyers expect a new wave of talented shooters in the third world willing to work for a pittance sorry but it's not going to happen as far as i've seen, they're too busy shooting weddings, events, etc no matter if now they've fast ADSL connection and bank accounts and can even write in broken english.
okay, so here we go...
the national inflight magazine of where you live (assuming you still live there) for example does not even publish in this so called third world you rant about. they do it out of country, they pay expats to produce, at an expat salary. now if they have a choice of which they do have, pay $1 or $5 or $50 per photo, which will they choose? they will still pay the expat 2-5K per month to make it look goose (sic) because they can. now the clowns that run that mag and airline have money, but they will pay for what looks goose (sic) but will also pay as little as they can to make money. so now lets talk their ad rates, do they charge in the local currency or in USD? a quarter page ad in the inflight in mention charges close to $1500 per issue, but will only pay pennies for a quarter page photo, that is unless they are client direct then they will pay $125 for a photo, of which they do cause they do have the budget. khao chai mai? this whole budget argument is off as far as i am concerned. the reality however is the valuation of photos has declined due to the fact images are a plenty, and there is no shortage of suppliers short selling their wares, and certain agencies that are aware of this and short selling a commodity in volume, hence making millions in the process.