pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Over 200.000 new files added weekly :(  (Read 26148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2014, 10:40 »
+1
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).

Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.

That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."


« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2014, 10:51 »
0
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).

Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.

That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."

Hope they just paid accordingly...

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2014, 11:15 »
0
As for the drinks cart Shelma mentioned, you just have to worry about how to get home if you're not on a bus/train route, so bizarre. Or go without, so it's a hollow perk (no treat for me anyway, I don't drink beer or spirits).

Yeah, new York, most people took the subway. But there was a sort of understanding that you took a 20-minute break to have a drink--Friday at 6 p.m., when you were still in the office, of course--and then you went back to work for a few more hours.

That job was the worst. I worked 12-13 hours per day, 7 days a week. Which is why everyone who worked at Kirshenbaum & Bond called it "Kirshenbaum & Bondage."

Hope they just paid accordingly...

Nope! Low pay, relatively speaking. But they were very creative, so you put in a year or two there, built your reel and portfolio, won a few awards, and got a different job. I lasted less than a year.

Ron

« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2014, 12:35 »
-2
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
Whats that got to do with being an employee?? I think you quoted the wrong comment.

« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2014, 12:41 »
+13
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!

I find it ironic that you want Shutterstock to limit new photographers while at the same time having a Shutterstock referral link in your signature.

Ron

« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2014, 12:49 »
0
The folks at Shutterstock do the great work of course, but so do high tier photographers who are with SS almost from the beginning. Then, why aren't we given any perks? I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ and being more selective in approval process (at least in limiting access to newcomers)!

I find it ironic that you want Shutterstock to limit new photographers while at the same time having a Shutterstock referral link in your signature.
I hadnt even noticed. Good catch. Thats ironic, to say the least.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2014, 12:54 »
+2
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.
Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
Whats that got to do with being an employee?? I think you quoted the wrong comment.
Not at all, I was agreeing with niserin who said,
"I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ ...!"
I didn't see anyone asking to be treated as an employee.

« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2014, 12:56 »
+1
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..

« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2014, 13:00 »
+1
ShadySue is right, my comment was not about being an employee in the dictionary meaning of that word (would be impossible for plenty of reasons), but being treated like an individual who's a part of a team, and not as supplying crowd.

Ron

« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2014, 13:08 »
-2
We are suppliers not employees. Asking to be treated as an employee is nonsense.

Expecting a fair return for each image sold is perfectly reasonable, expecially if they want people to supply other than the generic high-supply, high demand images.
Whats that got to do with being an employee?? I think you quoted the wrong comment.

Not at all, I was agreeing with niserin who said,
"I don't ask for yoga, massages etc, but a pay rise to let's say 0.44$ ...!"
I didn't see anyone asking to be treated as an employee.


http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/over-200-000-new-files-added-weekly-(/msg360695/#msg360695

Ron

« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2014, 13:10 »
-3
ShadySue is right, my comment was not about being an employee in the dictionary meaning of that word (would be impossible for plenty of reasons), but being treated like an individual who's a part of a team, and not as supplying crowd.


You asked to be treated as an employee, shady sue says she saw no one asking for it, then I am quoted with a reply that doesnt make sense, turns out Sue is agreeing with you over another comment, you then say you agree with Sue, actually confirming your own quote, the one Sue didnt see.

Maybe you two need to read this thread again, and work out between each other who said what and who agrees with who, but I am no part of it.  ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2014, 13:13 »
+1
ShadySue is right, my comment was not about being an employee in the dictionary meaning of that word (would be impossible for plenty of reasons), but being treated like an individual who's a part of a team, and not as supplying crowd.


You asked to be treated as an employee, shady sue says she saw no one asking for it, then I am quoted with a reply that doesnt make sense, turns out Sue is agreeing with you over another comment, you then say you agree with Sue, actually confirming your own quote, the one Sue didnt see.

Maybe you two need to read this thread again, and work out between each other who said what and who agrees with who, but I am no part of it.  ;D

I took the second post of niserin as modifying/expanding/explaining the first. And agreed with the combined posting.

Ron

« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2014, 13:15 »
-2
So you did read him/her asking to be treated as an employee. Anyhoo.

Carry on.

Ron

« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2014, 13:16 »
-3
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..
Better delete it now then.

« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2014, 13:18 »
+4
The most important trait a microstock photographer needs is an ability to see the bigger picture. Otherwise, you will go insane looking at your 38 cent sales. The fact is, those sales add up to more than what you could get selling your image once for $500.

The same ability needs to be applied to other microstock issues. Sure, I'd prefer fewer photos coming in for purely immediate selfish needs. But the fact remains, the more photos Shutterstock has, the more customers it can attract.  A larger library means that buyers are more likely to find the image they want. The more times they can find the image they want, the more likely they are to be repeat customers. More repeat customers, more sales for me.

I also think there were a lot of contributors holding on to their work over the holidays, so you got a bit of a rush the past week.

 

« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2014, 13:27 »
+3
And we're not employees. We are individual business people competing with each other subject to the laws of supply and demand. Corporate employees are generally insulated from the harsh realities of the business world.

Also, when you consider Shutterstock pays ten times as much or more than any other microstock site, how can I complain about Shutterstock? I should be complaining about 123RF, Dreamstime and Fotolia, among others. Why is it not possible for them to offer me similar earnings to Shutterstock? If Shutterstock is accepting 200,000 new images while Fotolia is taking in 50,000, and Shutterstock is paying me ten times as much, which one is doing the right thing?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 13:30 by robhainer »

« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2014, 13:38 »
0
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..

You have a nice website and photos, Michael.


« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2014, 14:08 »
0
Yeah, that's a good catch :).
The signature from the old days when the market was dynamically growing and sales were raising proportionally with new images/photographers..

You have a nice website and photos, Michael.

Thanks a lot ;)

« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2014, 15:16 »
0
Its quite simple I want everyones elses pictures rejected and all mine accepted. I don't care what benefits SS choose to give their staff while they are so far ahead of the competition. I always try to remember no one has ever forced me to upload a picture anywhere.

« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2014, 16:06 »
+2
The most important trait a microstock photographer needs is an ability to see the bigger picture. Otherwise, you will go insane looking at your 38 cent sales. The fact is, those sales add up to more than what you could get selling your image once for $500.

There are a lot of prices in between 38 cents and $500.

« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2014, 16:08 »
+2
The microstrock concept is that we sell our pictures for one dollar many times, so it becomes sustainable.

The cost of producing an image is returned because it sells many times.

BUT the agencies let us down, they put all the expenses on us, all the postprocessing, categorizing and keywords and all the manufacturing costs. We do all the work.
Yet they deny us the benifit of having many downloads on the images, because they just take more new contributors in.

So the agencies undermine the concept that is the basis of their success, they cheat us and they do not keep their promises.
I can understand that the agencies want to have innovative content, they want new contributors, so they dont stagnate.
Innovations are important in the world of today.
But I cannot understand why they consequently only prey on us, and not let of harvest the benifits.
Well I can. They have the oppertunity, and since we are powerless, they exploit us.
If there were a union of contributing phoitographers. The first it would command was that, the agencies could only take in as many new photographers as the rise in sales allowed.

Wise words.

« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2014, 16:08 »
+3
.... how can I complain about Shutterstock? I should be complaining about 123RF, Dreamstime and Fotolia, among others. Why is it not possible for them to offer me similar earnings to Shutterstock?

Maybe... just a thought... because SS has been gaining control of the market for years, by driving prices through the floor?

« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2014, 16:22 »
-4
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!

And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.

The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 16:27 by robhainer »

« Reply #48 on: January 12, 2014, 16:31 »
+8
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!

And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.

The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.

I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.

« Reply #49 on: January 12, 2014, 17:11 »
+5
How do they drive prices through the floor when they pay out more than anyone else does? If I make more at the end of the day, I don't care what the per license price is. It's not even important. What matters is the total income. Again, it's about the bigger picture. Who else is going to pay me $1,000+ for a couple of snapshots of my kid in superhero costume? Not some fancy ad agency, that's for sure. Shutterstock has. I spent maybe five bucks making that photo!

And let's not overlook the fact that subscriptions are only part of the picture at Shutterstock. Half of my income comes from On Demands, ELs and SODs.

The fact is, microstock photographers need to manage their costs and do things on the cheap. If you're spending hundreds of dollars paying models and buying props, you only have yourself to blame if you turn around and sell your images via Microstock. I use volunteer models. I buy my props at Wal-Mart, Party City or Michaels, and then I return them for a refund when I'm done with them.


I guess the big picture never worked that well for me. It's nice if it does, but if it doesn't it still has an impact on what happens everywhere else. For example, Thinkstock exist because of Shutterstock, so do many other models that haven't necessarily been a good thing for us that do better at selling at higher RPDs.

I don't agree, I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to the big picture and I agree with your key point.

SS has stated that they will not be raising prices and they have stated that they are doing this to capture market share.  Every year our expenses go up and every year as SS grows; their growth strategy exerts yet more pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing their buyer packages.

Snip
Duck Swartz

So whats changed in the marketplace thats giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years and as that now work keeps moving back and forth. The contributors 40,000 of them all over the world are constantly competing with each other.

So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.

Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board

It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last

 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 17:17 by gbalex »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2584 Views
Last post April 30, 2007, 15:34
by fintastique
1 Replies
2191 Views
Last post September 25, 2012, 02:40
by Wim
5 Replies
4549 Views
Last post December 02, 2014, 14:28
by asmai
24 Replies
6501 Views
Last post August 15, 2015, 13:10
by Stickystock
6 Replies
4628 Views
Last post June 01, 2016, 04:04
by emjaysmith

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors