pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Creates First Silicon Alley Billionaire  (Read 24415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tror

« Reply #150 on: July 09, 2013, 18:42 »
0
I think I get it now.  We should all wise up, get out of photography, and invest in companies that successfully exploit photographers.  All that remains is to change the name of this site to MicrostockholdersGroup.com

Could not say it better....


« Reply #151 on: July 09, 2013, 20:23 »
-1
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.

Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.

« Reply #152 on: July 10, 2013, 05:49 »
-2
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.

Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.

we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS

« Reply #153 on: July 10, 2013, 11:44 »
+8
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.


Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.


we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS


Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses.

Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also.  Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions. 

Add the new search into the equation and the fact that many who worked very hard to provide the assets that made SS successful are now finding that they need to find new jobs. The new search changes will help SS's bottom line but are harming those who made them successful and wealthy. Then there is the screw job on the Referral program, submitters feel more than betrayed. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108

Maybe you are beginning to get the picture. To add insult to injury gostwyck and his stock toting buddies are talking nouveau riche smack and encouraging the company to gouge us further so that their freshly bought stock will go up in price.

« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2013, 13:03 »
+2
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.

Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.

I know. What's with all these jerks that can't enjoy their huge success in microstock because of all their jealousy of the owners of these agencies?   ::)

Tror

« Reply #155 on: July 10, 2013, 14:00 »
+2
In my opinion, it seemed that people were pretty happy until they found out that the owner of the company is now a billionaire. It sounds like a simple case of envy to me. I've always felt that shutterstock has been fair to its contributors, and I've seen nothing but an increase in revenues for myself since I started in 2005. I currently pay my mortgage with my stock earnings, most of which comes from shutterstock. This is part time work for me. If I can make a decent earning from it, and the owner of the company can be successful, then that's great for both of us, and people should stop whining.


Well said Sir. The politics of envy always rules supreme. The truth is that SS have invariably treated their contributors better than any other agency ... and now they are being criticised for being incredibly successful whilst doing so. You couldn't make it up.


we can say that 47 times but some independent contributors can't accept the fact SS got them a big chunk of their income and it grows every month, looks like they would have lived better without SS


Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses.

Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also.  Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions. 

Add the new search into the equation and the fact that many who worked very hard to provide the assets that made SS successful are now finding that they need to find new jobs. The new search changes will help SS's bottom line but are harming those who made them successful and wealthy. Then there is the screw job on the Referral program, submitters feel more than betrayed. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=128547&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=108

Maybe you are beginning to get the picture. To add insult to injury gostwyck and his stock toting buddies are talking nouveau riche smack and encouraging the company to gouge us further so that their freshly bought stock will go up in price.


You are the hero of my day. I cannot hear this corporate propaganda stuff anymore...

« Reply #156 on: July 10, 2013, 14:29 »
+1
Lets put this into perspective. Submitters have not had a royalty raise since 2008 while their production expenses have gone up across the board for 6 years. The world has been struggling under a global recession and many submitters have been struggling just to put food on the table and pay their mortgages/rent, utility, gas and medical expenses.

Oh, come on! Anybody who threw in the day job to go microstocking without having proved to themselves in advance that they had the ability to earn double what they needed to live on (allowing a safety cushion) was just being foolish.  As was anyone who really believed that it would be a secure income source for life, rather than for the next four or five years, with anything after that being a piece of good fortune (and, right now, I'd be inclined to say that it's not really possible to look forward more than a couple of years with any confidence).

It may have been a life-line to some people who had no job and are using it to cling on to economic survival but if so the consequences for them have been beneficial, regardless of whether SS is making a fat profit or just scraping by.  The old socialist  "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle. It is just a whinging abdication of personal responsibility: if you don't like the terms you get, then open a wedding studio, or do commercial photography or something and use your skills entirely for your own benefit.  If you're good you'll probably make a lot more money, but you'll have a hell of a lot more worries, too.

Many submitters felt guilty about asking for a raise when they felt the SS was struggling also.  Little did they know that while the majority suffered SS was quietly lining its pockets with 90.5 million plus and a potential billion dollar stock bonus using the assets we produced with our own funds under challenging conditions. 

Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.

Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 14:39 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #157 on: July 10, 2013, 15:37 »
+2
Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.

Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.

Surely you remember that Bruce sold Istock in 2006 just before the world slipped into a global recession. The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006 is widely know to have kicked the world into a deep and prolonged recession. Go dig up the threads on SS asking for a raise it is all there in black and white.


« Reply #158 on: July 10, 2013, 15:49 »
-2
Anybody who observed the famous $50m heist by iStock when it sold out to Getty (or the Great Satan, as it was widely regarded by the participating photographers of 2004) would have to have been pretty dim not to realise that SS was making good profits and would have enormous stock market value if it was ever floated.

Thank goodness that they didn't accept any offer they might have got (and probably did get) from GettyImages, which would have taken them off in the direction of StockXpert and various other aquisitions that Getty merged into its corporate body or consigned to the dustbin of TS.

Surely you remember that Bruce sold Istock in 2006 just before the world slipped into a global recession. The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006 is widely know to have kicked the world into a deep and prolonged recession. Go dig up the threads on SS asking for a raise it is all there in black and white.

Sorry, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. You'll probably find me in the threads asking for a rise, too, there's no harm in asking!

I'm completely baffled by your apparent suggestion that ss should have responded to a global recession by raising prices and commission rates.  Isn't one major reason for its outstanding success the fact that it froze prices in response to the hard times that customers were facing?


« Reply #159 on: July 10, 2013, 15:52 »
+3
The old socialist  "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.

Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?

Ron

« Reply #160 on: July 10, 2013, 15:57 »
0
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL

« Reply #161 on: July 10, 2013, 16:08 »
+1
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL

I rather think the "spewing nonsense" is on the other side.  The only reason this has come up is because of the valuation of the stock by Wall Street. It's completely unrelated to production costs or anything else, it's just "oooh look how much money they've made, they should have given some of it to me instead". It's nonsense, it's not even real money, it's a notional paper profit.

What's more, I am not gaining from the SS share price, I'm certainly not gaining from iS's shenanigans and I resent being called a shill for the crime of pointing out that we don't live in a quasi-commie paradise where all the profits are handed over to the company's suppliers, as some people keep suggesting they should be. My only relationship with both these companies is as a supplier of images, the same as most others in this thread.

SS has grown its overall business, which has allowed us to boost our earnings while carrying on doing exactly what we were doing seven years ago, even using the same equipment if we want to. I don't see what is unfair about that. Oh, but I forgot, Jon's got a billion dollars that he should be giving away just like Getty and every other corporation gives its wealth away.

What a lot of molluscs!



« Reply #162 on: July 10, 2013, 16:15 »
-2
The old socialist  "we're starving and you're growing fat on our sweat and toil" line can be wheeled out by any employee who feels envious of the business owner's lifestyle.

Is it envy if it's true? How many people are making a livable wage (by US standards where SS is located) off their SS earnings alone?

Why should someone in India be getting a full-time US wage? Why should someone who is self-employed supplying a dozen companies with their product have a right to a livable wage (by US standards) from each of those companies? Why should anybody be entitled to more than they have freely agreed to accept for their work?  Why should artists with all sorts of different skills and abilities, and levels of effort, all be entitled to a US living wage? Should that apply to everyone with more than 10 images, or more than 100, or more than 1,000 or more than 10,000? Or should they all get the same regardless of everything, and regardless of whether their work sells or not?

I mean, really, this "workers deserve a living wage" stuff - while it is fair enough for US employees - is utter nonsense when you start trying to apply it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to have sent a few pictures to an agency. We are NOT employees, we are individual businesses working for ourselves and using whatever different agency arrangements happen to suit us.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #163 on: July 10, 2013, 16:24 »
-1
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims. 
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message.  Certainly has deteriorated.


Ron

« Reply #164 on: July 10, 2013, 16:28 »
+2
Its not mollucs or whatever you call it, I am not calling you a shill either. You are all putting way to much weight on someone saying they want a raise because they are jealous or because Jon is a billionaire. Its fallacies. I even made it clear it was a cheeky comment. Everybody asking for a raise gets jumped on. Whatever. But its these kind of threads that a raise is mentioned. You dont mention a raise on a thread about rejections. Its normal for people to ask for a raise. In fact I got a raise this year at my company because the company is doing excellent. People asking for a raise has nothing to do with jealousy or envy, thats complete crap.

Ron

« Reply #165 on: July 10, 2013, 16:30 »
0
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims. 
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message.  Certainly has deteriorated.
Every thread derails here

Ron

« Reply #166 on: July 10, 2013, 16:33 »
+3
In fact you and everybody else is complaining about the agencies stealing from us with 70-85% commissions, yet when people ask for 1% back they are greedy. Seriously.


Tror

« Reply #167 on: July 10, 2013, 16:34 »
+3
I still don`t get it why so many people are against a raise inspite of the good numbers SS produces with our content. Have you ever seen a employee of a big successful company seen reject a raise? Or telling its company/employer: "Noooo, its ok, keep the money, I don`t need a raise and you do such a good job". I mean: how stupid can it get?

BTW Baldrick: Yes, I actually think the people should earn the same for the same work, no matter if they are in India or the US.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 16:36 by Tror »

« Reply #168 on: July 10, 2013, 16:37 »
0
Its not mollucs or whatever you call it, I am not calling you a shill either. You are all putting way to much weight on someone saying they want a raise because they are jealous or because Jon is a billionaire. Its fallacies. I even made it clear it was a cheeky comment. Everybody asking for a raise gets jumped on. Whatever. But its these kind of threads that a raise is mentioned. You dont mention a raise on a thread about rejections. Its normal for people to ask for a raise. In fact I got a raise this year at my company because the company is doing excellent. People asking for a raise has nothing to do with jealousy or envy, thats complete crap.

I don't mind anyone asking for a rise. But the terms people have couched it in here is rooted in the report that Jon has become a billionaire as a result of the share sale, not anything else.  As far as I am concerned, that's not a valid argument.
If people want to talk about inflation, rising production costs etc., then, fine. But the sudden wheeling out of the "photographers are starving while fat-cat Jon enjoys his billion" really doesn't strike me as a valid argument. Do you imagine Jonathon Klein or Serban over at iS are anything other than stinking rich?  Even tiny agencies might be making a lot of money for their owners - tens of thousands a month, while people take a year or more to get a payout of $100. Running a pre-paid microstock site is a fabulous way to get rich. Doesn't everybody know that?

« Reply #169 on: July 10, 2013, 16:38 »
0
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims. 
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message.  Certainly has deteriorated.
Every thread derails here

Hey, come on, your original post was far from being unnuanced!

« Reply #170 on: July 10, 2013, 16:39 »
+1
Everybody asking for a raise or even mentioning a raise is marked down as being jealous or showing envy. The people spewing that nonsense are also never hit by any of what the agencies are doing and every change by the agency is making them more money. SS and IS shills is what they are. LOL


I rather think the "spewing nonsense" is on the other side.  The only reason this has come up is because of the valuation of the stock by Wall Street. It's completely unrelated to production costs or anything else, it's just "oooh look how much money they've made, they should have given some of it to me instead". It's nonsense, it's not even real money, it's a notional paper profit.

What's more, I am not gaining from the SS share price, I'm certainly not gaining from iS's shenanigans and I resent being called a shill for the crime of pointing out that we don't live in a quasi-commie paradise where all the profits are handed over to the company's suppliers, as some people keep suggesting they should be. My only relationship with both these companies is as a supplier of images, the same as most others in this thread.

SS has grown its overall business, which has allowed us to boost our earnings while carrying on doing exactly what we were doing seven years ago, even using the same equipment if we want to. I don't see what is unfair about that. Oh, but I forgot, Jon's got a billion dollars that he should be giving away just like Getty and every other corporation gives its wealth away.

What a lot of molluscs!


I would agree with you if SS produced it's own assets, the fact is they do not. 

Why don't you go to lunch with a few of the HCV producers who have been affected. To start look adigrosu, aquafish and many more in the face and tell them they do not deserve a raise from a company who is prospering by offering the asset they produced for sale.  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258

« Reply #171 on: July 10, 2013, 16:44 »
-2


BTW Baldrick: Yes, I actually think the people should earn the same for the same work, no matter if they are in India or the US.

Then you have no understanding of the world and the different value of money in different parts of it. [edit: But, come to think of it, that is exactly what SS provides: we all get paid enough for artists in India to live on quite handsomely!]

And I'm not saying that people should refuse a rise, or not ask for one. What I am saying is that they should not become hostile towards a company they have chosen to market their goods through just because it is doing well.

It seems that it is perfectly all right to put a lot of time and effort into supplying a company that never pays out because it sells so slowly that you never hit the payout level, but it is unacceptable for a company to do so well that it pays you month after month without fail.

You guys seem to embrace failure and hate success - and you seem to prefer to be partnered with companies that never pay you than with those that do pay you, because those that pay out are unacceptably capitalist. Strange. Very strange, I really don't understand the mindset.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 16:49 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #172 on: July 10, 2013, 16:47 »
-2
Why don't you go to lunch with a few of the HCV producers who have been affected. To start look adigrosu, aquafish and many more in the face and tell them they do not deserve a raise from a company who is prospering by offering the asset they produced for sale.  http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131258


No problem. I'll pay for a five-star lunch if you arrange for them to come to Qatar.

Ron

« Reply #173 on: July 10, 2013, 16:48 »
0
Seems to be a lot of "self-proclaimed" victims. 
I think the thread originated as a congratulatory message.  Certainly has deteriorated.
Every thread derails here

Hey, come on, your original post was far from being unnuanced!
LOL. But a thread doesnt derail with the OP, only the second post has that power  :)

Cheeky comment, thats all it was, and the thread is banjaxed. Ganky muck savages.


« Reply #174 on: July 10, 2013, 16:50 »
0
A division of opinion based on different world-views, that's all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2408 Views
Last post January 19, 2010, 10:38
by donding
4 Replies
3345 Views
Last post August 27, 2012, 16:40
by leaf
1 Replies
2437 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 13:22
by cathyslife
0 Replies
1953 Views
Last post June 20, 2016, 17:28
by increasingdifficulty
19 Replies
835 Views
Last post December 04, 2021, 05:18
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle