pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Oringer gets $28 million grant  (Read 19104 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2015, 02:01 »
0
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.


« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2015, 14:56 »
0
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?


Old pricing

Stiffed us and now Shutterstock is sneaking in hidden royalty decreases.



« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2015, 16:01 »
0
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.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2015, 22:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2015, 11:49 »
+3
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 companys 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 cant be deducted from the companys 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. Whats more, the taxes on non-cash equity-based stock compensation are shared by the employer and the employee.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 11:53 by gbalex »

« Reply #80 on: May 06, 2015, 14:52 »
+3
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???

Uncle Pete

« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2015, 18:11 »
+3
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.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #82 on: May 08, 2015, 04:30 »
+5
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?

« Reply #83 on: May 08, 2015, 05:01 »
+10
I have always liked SS, sometimes more, sometimes less. But now they seem to be on the wrong track in many ways.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #84 on: May 08, 2015, 05:46 »
+5
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.  :-\

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #85 on: May 08, 2015, 06:34 »
+7
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 ...


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #86 on: May 08, 2015, 06:44 »
+1
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

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #87 on: May 08, 2015, 07:25 »
0
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

« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2015, 08:33 »
+6
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.

« Reply #89 on: May 09, 2015, 09:54 »
0
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.


« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2015, 13:17 »
+4
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.

« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2015, 13:20 »
+1
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.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2015, 15:38 »
+5
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 and over and over again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.

« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2015, 16:53 »
+1
I warned everybody over and over and over 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.


« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2015, 23:40 »
+2
I warned everybody over and over and over 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.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #95 on: May 10, 2015, 01:22 »
+1
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.

shudderstok

« Reply #96 on: May 10, 2015, 01:32 »
0
I warned everybody over and over and over 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.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 01:47 by shudderstok »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #97 on: May 10, 2015, 01:32 »
+1
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.

shudderstok

« Reply #98 on: May 10, 2015, 01:50 »
+1
I warned everybody over and over and over 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.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 01:54 by shudderstok »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #99 on: May 10, 2015, 02:08 »
0
I warned everybody over and over and over 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3664 Views
Last post January 25, 2011, 12:24
by Noedelhap
3 Replies
2182 Views
Last post February 26, 2013, 23:03
by Elenathewise
3 Replies
1944 Views
Last post June 21, 2013, 18:26
by jbarber873
17 Replies
6038 Views
Last post August 16, 2013, 11:55
by Shelma1
107 Replies
49345 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 09:02
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors