MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Shelma1 on February 13, 2016, 06:01
-
Shutterstock continues its takeover of the Empire State Building while cutting our EL earnings:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-expands-headquarters-at-empire-state-building-lifts-total-above-105000-square-feet-300219654.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-expands-headquarters-at-empire-state-building-lifts-total-above-105000-square-feet-300219654.html)
I used to defend them....no more. Not after their nasty move of cutting our EL royalties. Next in the news, I'm sure, will be that they are posting record growth and record profits.
-
TNX Shelma for sharing. :)
My opinion:
I do not care where SS is moving, but I know that my SS buyers are moving to Fotolia and 123, for sure.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
-
TNX Shelma for sharing. :)
My opinion:
I do not care where SS is moving, but I know that my SS buyers are moving to Fotolia and 123, for sure.
Like!
-
Kapitalism rules!
-
TNX Shelma for sharing. :)
My opinion:
I do not care where SS is moving, but I know that my SS buyers are moving to Fotolia and 123, for sure.
LOL.. True
-
I wonder how they justify this to share holders? I mean one floor they can say is needed to make the company appear high status and attract sales, but I am sure they could accommodate the rest of the staff of this web based business up the road for a tenth of the price.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
My exact same thoughts.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Complaining is good. Squeeky wheel gets the grease. 8)
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Complaining is good. Squeeky wheel gets the grease. 8)
Not always. If you're too squeaky you get the Vaseline.
-
The thing is, this "plan"started awhile back.
1. SS went public
2. Scott left SS
3. SS said they would keep being a part of this forum
4. SS stopped being a part of this forum
5. SS moved to the Empire State Building
6. SS cut commissions
7. SS got more posh real estate
The roadmap of what their intentions are is VERY VERY CLEAR.
-
Probably making room for a tofu cafe or bowling alley.
Expanding occupancy without signs of exponential growth gives me the shivers - sometimes means you've got too much stuff or you've hired more people than you need.
-
Probably making room for a tofu cafe or bowling alley.
Expanding occupancy without signs of exponential growth gives me the shivers - sometimes means you've got too much stuff or you've hired more people than you need.
Or ... you are making too much money off your contributors and you need to invest in capital improvements in order to reduce your tax liability. :'(
-
The thing is, this "plan"started awhile back.
1. SS went public
2. Scott left SS
3. SS said they would keep being a part of this forum
4. SS stopped being a part of this forum
5. SS moved to the Empire State Building
6. SS cut commissions
7. SS got more posh real estate
The roadmap of what their intentions are is VERY VERY CLEAR.
Everything changes when a company goes public. Everything. And usually, not for the better.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Complaining is good. Squeeky wheel gets the grease. 8)
Not always. If you're too squeaky you get the Vaseline.
LMAO... well said..!!! and any finger will do ;D
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
-
The thing is, this "plan"started awhile back.
1. SS went public
2. Scott left SS
3. SS said they would keep being a part of this forum
4. SS stopped being a part of this forum
5. SS moved to the Empire State Building
6. SS cut commissions
7. SS got more posh real estate
The roadmap of what their intentions are is VERY VERY CLEAR.
DUH!!!
-
The thing is, this "plan"started awhile back.
1. SS went public
2. Scott left SS
3. SS said they would keep being a part of this forum
4. SS stopped being a part of this forum
5. SS moved to the Empire State Building
6. SS cut commissions
7. SS got more posh real estate
The roadmap of what their intentions are is VERY VERY CLEAR.
DUH!!!
That was a dumb s h I t reply that added no * value to this discussion
-
people need to understand that cost of revenue is different from cost of sales.
-
Probably making room for a tofu cafe or bowling alley.
Expanding occupancy without signs of exponential growth gives me the shivers - sometimes means you've got too much stuff or you've hired more people than you need.
Ive always wondered why these companies keep expanding and hiring people. Maybe, I'm missing something here, but I don't think you need more than 100 people (with the exception of reviewers) in any image collection agency.
-
I really don't know what they hell they are doing.
Their stock is trading at like a 3 year low, they have an earnings release coming out in 10 days, and their last guidance was way below expectations.
They are trading at a P/E of 50, which means their actual stock price should be around $3-$5 based solely on earnings, which means that all of their current market cap is based on future expectations. Why would they invest in more infrastructure right after Adobe, a company that dwarfs their market cap, forays into the business as a direct competitor?
It makes absolutely no sense unless it's a deliberate act to, in some strange manner, assure investors that despite having a god-awful earnings, they are investing in infrastructure, indicating they still have faith in their business model.
But based on the way the DNC is behaving, who knows - everyone in prominent positions seems pretty nuts nowadays.
-
I really don't know what they hell they are doing.
<snip random confused talk>
everyone in prominent positions seems pretty nuts nowadays.
Very true.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
+1
I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
+1
I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………
Ok and whats your solution now?
Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!
Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
+1
I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………
Ok and whats your solution now?
Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!
Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?
You're wasting your breath. People need to realise that there isn't going to be a time when everything is going to be perfect and we can just put our feet up and relax. We need to keep protesting, opting out, coming up with new sales channels and so on and always will. The result will be just enough for the best of us to survive. That's the market. Everything is always in flux and always will be.
Some people have always been the same way. Doing nothing, complaining, complaining about other people complaining, saying I told you so. I don't think there was ever a time when they didn't know everything "years ago".
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
+1
I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………
Ok and whats your solution now?
Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!
Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?
Maybe because we are older and have an greater experience of life than most of the people here [?] (Of course I cannot speak in the Laurin's name).
"Every good thing starts with an idea". Not really, at first the idea should be a good one…
Your [our] desires do not (always) become reality.
And every bad thing starts with an idea too…
What you think it is good for you [us] and other 100 persons could probably be bad from the point of view of 1 000 000 other persons. So make the math, 100 count nothing…
From my point of view fighting against windmills could be a noble endeavor but it is a waste of time and energy.
utopia
juːˈtəʊpɪə/
noun
an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
-
Maybe because we are older and have an greater experience of life than most of the people here [?]
Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times? ;D
-
Maybe because we are older and have an greater experience of life than most of the people here [?]
Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times? ;D
+1 for your signature
No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that.
-
Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times? ;D
"Only cry a loud about the good old times?"
I am not crying about the old good times… Not at all, never.
But I am not whimpering about the new [bad] times, like many here.
I am aware that the system is not the best today (if any "best" system could exist), but we live longer, we live better (and we lament more and more).
The problem is not a problem of changing prices on Shutterstock's ELs… This is a false problem, or only a very very little part of it.
The problem is too complex to be limited only to Shutterstock's ELs.
This is part of the result of how we have built our whole society. We are part of it, we are responsible of it. Constantly whining is just weakness and hypocrisy.
The problem is a general problem of society. A society based on exploitation of the most for the profit of the less.
The problem is a priority of values in life. (What is really important in life, what we really want in life?)
Money (and their possessors) rules the world, banks rule the world. All is done in the name of God Money…
If you really want to change things, change the system, the whole system…
There is could be a way: make the system to fail, theoretically it is very simple: make the banks fail and the whole system will collapse. Are you ready for this? How many people are ready for it?
If you are, do it. If you are not you can continue to whimper, you will change nothing at all (and fill more depressed).
But, in my opinion, this is another battle against windmills because you cannot fight and win against human nature (that is to be courageous in speech and coward in act).
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.
SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.
-
For big agencies it is less expensive to have own images factories for generic keywords. Other niches will be quickly filled in and kept only time when agency needs it to pick up
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.
SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.
This should tell you how much they don't care about deactivation, protest, complaints, opt out or individuals. You only hurt yourself by these and staying with micro is riding a sinking ship.
Reading these complaint threads with all the anger year after year, it only gets worse. Protesting here must make somebody in the Empire State Building laugh till they hurt.
If the people making all the money are stock holders, with no dividends, at $28 a share, why don't people complaining here just buy shars and be rich?
-
They are trading at a P/E of 50, which means their actual stock price should be around $3-$5 based solely on earnings, which means that all of their current market cap is based on future expectations.
This single fact is the key - it shows an unsustainable situation. At some point the big investors will lose patience and demand changes, and if you think things are crazy now, just wait. I have no idea how that would play out, but we can be sure that the situation for contributors will only deteriorate further.
-
I don't think they can squeeze us more than Getty have. I hoped the sites would look at the huge amounts of money they lose from image theft and would do something to improve on that, making them and us a lot more money. Perhaps the new space is for a team to do that :)
-
I don't think they can squeeze us more than Getty have. I hoped the sites would look at the huge amounts of money they lose from image theft and would do something to improve on that, making them and us a lot more money. Perhaps the new space is for a team to do that :)
With RF, it's so difficult to do that.
You have to 'guess' which are the legitimate uses, obviously guessing wrong sometimes, so some misuses would be missed and other times you'd be hassling legitimate buyers to prove they had the licence.
E.g. if I'm the buyer/designer, I could, at least in theory, use the same file over and over in work for any number of my clients all over the world.
-
Isn't there a way to put a hidden watermark in images? What does PicScout do? If it can't be done with RF, then maybe RM needs to make a comeback. When the sites have finished reducing the amount we make, they will have to think of something else to keep increasing their profits.
-
iStock/Getty could make a fortune by charging:
1. Those who use images editorially without the required attribution.
2. Those who use editorial images commercially. (Though I'm happy enough if they get mine taken down pronto.)
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
+1
I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………
Ok and whats your solution now?
Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!
Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?
All these ideas have been tried before and not worked. Don't blame the messenger(s).
-
"No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that."
if you knew how many times I said that, You would be amazed. Also. Without some of us Veteran Old timers. You guys would still be making 20 Cents a DL. No EL's,OD's Nothing. We fought Long and hard. I'll still fight for anything and always will. what I won't do is waste time, There no interest guys. It's gone way to far off the rails. And like I said The majority doesn't care and I firmly Believe that. We bitch and Moan and in 3/4 weeks.....History. That ain't the way it was. It's the way it is now. Am I happy about it?. Hell No. Come up with something and I'll be right there. EL's don't account for anything anymore. There history Much ado about nothing. Image preview issue to me is Viral. That really ticked me off.
What am I or you supposed to do. write jon and say 167 Of us out of 70,000 are upset. and were gonna opt out or quit and take down our ports?? Please. ?
Am I giving Up?.....Never
So....How do we get 50% commission from SS and every Other site?...Good question.
I remember as a Old school RM Guy back in 2002/03 when the word about this Micro thing got Out there were huge meetings in LA for traditional Stock shooters and what we were going to do about it. Im telling Ya , there were some very Heated words going On. in 6 Months to a year, Micro Put all these people Out of work. very few Came over.
-
somebody came up with opting out of Els, did you opt out?
-
At some point - and it may not be far off - things will really go south at SS. As per previous posts, their stock price is heading for a cliff. And having spent the last few years systematically devaluing their product, they may not have many options. I like to think there will come a point where meaningful competition - with a different model - could finally get started.
And that's all the optimism I have for today, sorry.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
+1
I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………
Ok and whats your solution now?
Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!
Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?
All these ideas have been tried before and not worked. Don't blame the messenger(s).
Messengers? Chichikov is right. People just complain and cry but never do anything. Rinderart sends his work to DP and other big crooks for penny's but plays like the big prophet who saw the future. People here do nothing except talk while working for low cheap percentages and sending photos to cheap low paying sites. No wonder the agency don't care. They laugh at us as some small forum discontents.
If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!
Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?
-
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
-
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal seller's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.
All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.
-
If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!
Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?
SS, iS and Ft sell cheap subs.
P5? I have no idea. I can't work out how their credit packages work for buying images. Don't bother telling me, I'm not a buyer and to buy there I'd apparently need to pay in dollars. Is there paid placement there? In one category, most of the top 50 are similars by the same person, then about 50 pics mostly similars by another person, then they seem more random.
-
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal er's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.
All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.
Im probably not going to pull the plug on SS or micro. I'm just leaving my old simple stuff there that nobody is willing to pay more than a couple dollars for. I moved all of my stuff thats proven to sell well at higher amounts and as art prints to my site and I don't offer resale licensing options. And for the stuff i have on Alamy as RM I restrict any resale options. I sell 32x48 canvas for $600. If they can buy the image for $1 on micro or even $50 on Alamy and print it themselves why would they buy my $600 print? They won't. Even on my own site i set my RM decor print licensing to end up being the same price if they buy the print or buy the download and print it themselves. I get that all the time "$600 for the print? Oh ok how about I just buy the image and print it myself? $450 for the download? Thats not really any cheaper". Nope it's not. Exactly.
-
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?
I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.
I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.
Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.
That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal er's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.
All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.
Im probably not going to pull the plug on SS or micro. I'm just leaving my old simple stuff there that nobody is willing to pay more than a couple dollars for. I moved all of my stuff thats proven to sell well at higher amounts and as art prints to my site and I don't offer resale licensing options. And for the stuff i have on Alamy as RM I restrict any resale options. I sell 32x48 canvas for $600. If they can buy the image for $1 on micro or even $50 on Alamy and print it themselves why would they buy my $600 print? They won't. Even on my own site i set my RM decor print licensing to end up being the same price if they buy the print or buy the download and print it themselves. I get that all the time "$600 the print? Oh ok how about I just buy the image and print it myself? $450 for the download? Thats not really any cheaper". Nope it's not. Exactly.
That all makes sense, and actually, I'm already doing it. I stopped putting new photos on SS a year and a half ago, forgot about stock and just did photos I liked. I'm a pretty small fish with no marketing but I make a few sales on FAA and I'm hoping to build on that. SS will never get another photo from me.
-
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio (http://www.symzio.com/).
For the first time there is a real option here - so don't keep complaining unless you've done everything you can to free yourself from the yoke of agencies. You control most of your own pricing, control your entire collection, have two new independent platforms to sell your stuff, and most importantly, keep a minimum of 70% of all revenue up to 90%.
No one is going to hand you a solution - you need to work for it. No matter how many posts you put up, no matter how many angry retorts or insults you upvote, and no matter how many programs you opt out of, the only feasible way to create a noticeable impact is to compete.
(http://peoplestockimages.com/wp-content/uploads/_sz/9020.jpg) (http://www.symzio.com/stock-photo/woman-ready-run)
-
I have opted out of EL's. I am slowly moving to RM and Macro but the problem I am having is that I'm use to seeing day-to-day profits and with the RM, the wait can be difficult. I will definitely need to get use to that.
I think the continued decrease of our "cut" will not stop. Soon our downloads will be 10-5 cents each for subs. I'm planning now to do something before the ship sinks.
I'm not surprised about the Target print. I often find myself looking for the small print ...
-
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio ([url]http://www.symzio.com/[/url]).
For the first time there is a real option here - so don't keep complaining unless you've done everything you can to free yourself from the yoke of agencies. You control most of your own pricing, control your entire collection, have two new independent platforms to sell your stuff, and most importantly, keep a minimum of 70% of all revenue up to 90%.
No one is going to hand you a solution - you need to work for it. No matter how many posts you put up, no matter how many angry retorts or insults you upvote, and no matter how many programs you opt out of, the only feasible way to create a noticeable impact is to compete.
([url]http://peoplestockimages.com/wp-content/uploads/_sz/9020.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.symzio.com/stock-photo/woman-ready-run[/url])
I agree with Robin. Thats why I've always said Micro is 20% + or - of my Income , It never was supposed to be more than that from Day one. Im a commercial Photographer and have been 25 Years before micro.....A gun for Hire, I do food menus,Seagrams,maytag,jewelry,Actor headshots and Furniture Catalogs,Glamour retouching for others,I teach,co-author Books ,Lectures and workshops around the country. And I Live Very well On the copyrights I own for 460TV shows,37 Films and 48 Music Albums. All of which I produced and own. I also have Major Interior designer contacts selling My paintings to Hotels, Banks,Whatever.. it's a business Guys and Im ALWAYS looking for opportunities..
And if your not ready or up to this? well then ya better get going or.....Take what they give or get out.
Thats the difference, You wanna be a working pro? get . out of this and do the work Promoting your work to clients. Ya, There still there and world wide But, you have to go get them if you have the right stuff and that means being able to shoot and process More than one or 2 subjects.. And have the equipment necessary to do it for whatever comes along. [A week ago, I shot a Insurance company Indoors...80 People scattered 2 floors on stairs.] 6 ..600 watt strobes 3 assistants.] Thats what it is. 5 hours for one shot.
I could never have made the money I need to live on Doing this alone and was always blown away by folks that could. Wanna know what makes me crazy?,, there are millions of great artists, Painters,Photographers,Musicians Dancers,actors..etc that will never be seen... Why?,, Because they dont possess the need to succeed, The drive,The self promotion and all the other stuff it takes.
I've said this a 100 times Shooting the Job is the easiest part. Getting the Job and keeping the job Is a 1000 times more difficult. especially since digital Came along.
If any of you can't or don't want to Promote yourselves....even a little. stick with Micro and accept whatever. Or...Put your foot down and say no More and make it a business. and as much as I respect Robin, Thats really Not the way either UNLESS you got some CHUTZPAH and go for it. Your the one that has to make it happen.
My Old friend Yuri was a textbook Perfect example of what Im saying He could have been anything he wanted. WORK ETHIC= Promotion=Just enough Talent.
Is there some BS involved? Of course. Don't fool yourselves.
Here's the method. when you see a crack in a door, do you wonder whats on the other side and peep through the crack ? Or do you just Knock the * thing down and walk in?? It better be the latter guys. It's not like you found the cure for cancer, Your taking Pictures.....Like a Million Others. Selling Is the art part.
Do I send everything I do to Microstock??...Hell No.
-
you do sound a lot like yuri thumping your own chest, the difference is, he did take action and left. you just complain and then brag how the biggest crook agency has an upswing in sales
-
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio ([url]http://www.symzio.com/[/url]).
For the first time there is a real option here - so don't keep complaining unless you've done everything you can to free yourself from the yoke of agencies. You control most of your own pricing, control your entire collection, have two new independent platforms to sell your stuff, and most importantly, keep a minimum of 70% of all revenue up to 90%.
No one is going to hand you a solution - you need to work for it. No matter how many posts you put up, no matter how many angry retorts or insults you upvote, and no matter how many programs you opt out of, the only feasible way to create a noticeable impact is to compete..........
I don't want my own site to sell image licenses, tried it with symbiostock and it wasn't a good experience. I still don't understand why thousands of us would want to pay hosting fees for our own sites when that money could be used to market one site? Shared hosting was relatively cheap but then you never know who you are sharing it with and that was an issue.
If we never get one site majority owned by contributors, I might go in to selling prints. That gets around the VAT issue for selling digital media online that made me close my symbiostock site. I can do a site to sell prints by myself and wont need to use 3rd party software that I don't really understand or have any control over.
-
Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times? ;D
"Only cry a loud about the good old times?"
I am not crying about the old good times… Not at all, never.
But I am not whimpering about the new [bad] times, like many here.
I am aware that the system is not the best today (if any "best" system could exist), but we live longer, we live better (and we lament more and more).
The problem is not a problem of changing prices on Shutterstock's ELs… This is a false problem, or only a very very little part of it.
The problem is too complex to be limited only to Shutterstock's ELs.
This is part of the result of how we have built our whole society. We are part of it, we are responsible of it. Constantly whining is just weakness and hypocrisy.
The problem is a general problem of society. A society based on exploitation of the most for the profit of the less.
The problem is a priority of values in life. (What is really important in life, what we really want in life?)
Money (and their possessors) rules the world, banks rule the world. All is done in the name of God Money…
If you really want to change things, change the system, the whole system…
There is could be a way: make the system to fail, theoretically it is very simple: make the banks fail and the whole system will collapse. Are you ready for this? How many people are ready for it?
If you are, do it. If you are not you can continue to whimper, you will change nothing at all (and fill more depressed).
But, in my opinion, this is another battle against windmills because you cannot fight and win against human nature (that is to be courageous in speech and coward in act).
there is some truth to it.
Anyway, I'm not depressed and it is not all hopeless... :o
Hey i feel good i like what i do! :-*
Just look at the share price Oringer is quite under pressure. The agency business collapses
by itself.
And if I can speed it up by talking about "unity"i do it. Thats it.
No reason to throw the towel.
-
"No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that."
if you knew how many times I said that, You would be amazed.
I would have expected nothing else from you!
The agency commission will decline.
Agencies are becoming less important in the future.
It will be easier in the future to sell images without an agency.
Today agencies grab the largest part of the cake.
In the future sellers and buyers not put up with that longer.
Agencies be replaced by search engines.
I am convinced of that.
-
"No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that."
if you knew how many times I said that, You would be amazed.
I would have expected nothing else from you!
The agency commission will decline.
Agencies are becoming less important in the future.
It will be easier in the future to sell images without an agency.
Today agencies grab the largest part of the cake.
In the future sellers and buyers not put up with that longer.
Agencies be replaced by search engines.
I am convinced of that.
So you think Google will pay us and at a better rate than we get now? I hope you're right but not going to hold my breath on that one.
-
"No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that."
if you knew how many times I said that, You would be amazed.
I would have expected nothing else from you!
The agency commission will decline.
Agencies are becoming less important in the future.
It will be easier in the future to sell images without an agency.
Today agencies grab the largest part of the cake.
In the future sellers and buyers not put up with that longer.
Agencies be replaced by search engines.
I am convinced of that.
I also believe in this.
At some point Google will buy them ALL out. 8)
-
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio ([url]http://www.symzio.com/[/url]).
For the first time there is a real option here - so don't keep complaining unless you've done everything you can to free yourself from the yoke of agencies. You control most of your own pricing, control your entire collection, have two new independent platforms to sell your stuff, and most importantly, keep a minimum of 70% of all revenue up to 90%.
No one is going to hand you a solution - you need to work for it. No matter how many posts you put up, no matter how many angry retorts or insults you upvote, and no matter how many programs you opt out of, the only feasible way to create a noticeable impact is to compete.
([url]http://peoplestockimages.com/wp-content/uploads/_sz/9020.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.symzio.com/stock-photo/woman-ready-run[/url])
And if Symzio is successful you're going to sell it to the highest bidder and then Symzio will be closed. ;D
-
And if Symzio is successful you're going to sell it to the highest bidder and then Symzio will be closed. ;D
Yes, that seems to be the definition of "entrepreneurship" today...start a company, rake in other people to do the real work, then cash out for millions off of their backs. >:(
-
symzio is hardly worth millons. ill put money on it that it doesnt have more than 100k images,
-
SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.
the reality of generic business is just that !!! it does not matter if you are yuri or sean . both ppl i admire for their achievement.
but put yourself in the market of generics... whether it is writing pop songs or playing churning rap music,etc.. it is not difficult to make those products. the buyers do not care if it is made in germany or made in ukraine or sold in chelsea or sold in the flea market.
they only know that it is available everywhere, and if it is paying $1000 a shot or 28 cts a shot,
you can be sure they will pay 28 cts.
it is not like a product that cannot be copied eg gucci, or chivas or ferrari ,etc.
if microstock is a business of unique photographs where only buyers of works by man ray or matthew brady etc or something that pirelli will insist on paying,etc..
that is different. proof is how many clones yuri and sean got as soon they everyone sees that they were selling like mcdonalds. this again is the problem when agencies show how many downloads a picture gets. it slant the buying in their favour , but also it attracts copyists.
and once there is someone or a hundred copycats of yuri and sean...
guess who become not so valuable???
who would buy a rolex or a fake rolex??? i would pay for the rolex.
who would say, no way, i only want this stock photo with yuri or sean name on it.
who really cares if yuri or sean name is not on it??? can you tell ???
microstock is like telemarketing...
that is the problem. that is the reality why ss or is when posed with a threat from yuri or sean to walk out the door...
they say, the exit is that way... don't hit your head on the way out!!!
-
.
and once there is someone or a hundred copycats of yuri
Hardly any of Yuri's work was original anyway. He just did it on a bigger scale.
-
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio ([url]http://www.symzio.com/[/url]).
Symzio is just replacing one boss (Oringer or Enache or...) with another - Robin. As it's Robin's baby, I can see why he views it as best, but that's not speaking from the contributor's point of view. As to "unified", I don't have a clue what that really amounts to. There's talk about contributor control - which they have over their own site - but over Symzio, that's Robin's. Symzio has "I can boot you out any time for any or no reason" wording that all the agencies have. There's no haven there, which is perhaps a reason why more people aren't hopping on.
-
Symzio is just replacing one boss (Oringer or Enache or...) with another - Robin. As it's Robin's baby, I can see why he views it as best, but that's not speaking from the contributor's point of view. As to "unified", I don't have a clue what that really amounts to. There's talk about contributor control - which they have over their own site - but over Symzio, that's Robin's. Symzio has "I can boot you out any time for any or no reason" wording that all the agencies have. There's no haven there, which is perhaps a reason why more people aren't hopping on.
true.
what was the other site we used to have here??? the one that started off very well, until some ppl started giving it bad ??? that too started some kind of indie network , didn't it???
i am thinking of music..eg. prince, loreena mckeenan (if wrong spelling of her name,sorry).. etc
how these musicians quit being pawns to the big recording tyrants like sony,etc..
and went on their own. i think U2 as well. how they manage today.
of course, it's easier for these three musicians because they've already made millions before they were booted out. so did yuri and sean , i guess.
pauliewalnuts said something too, of him going solo. maybe he can tune in here of how well he is doing.
also, i read somewhere of how some ex-micro photographers have gone onto ebay to sell framed photos independently too. i don't remember where i read it, but they too have gone away from microstock, and at that time, sounded like they are doing well.
at least i don't see them coming back to micro.
-
Whats the use, You guys have it all figured out. i know nothing.
-
If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!
Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?
SS, iS and Ft sell cheap subs.
P5? I have no idea. I can't work out how their credit packages work for buying images. Don't bother telling me, I'm not a buyer and to buy there I'd apparently need to pay in dollars. Is there paid placement there? In one category, most of the top 50 are similars by the same person, then about 50 pics mostly similars by another person, then they seem more random.
Yes, it is impossible to take anyone seriously who gives IS, FT, & SS as examples of sites who aren't screwing us. ::)
-
If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!
Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?
SS, iS and Ft sell cheap subs.
P5? I have no idea. I can't work out how their credit packages work for buying images. Don't bother telling me, I'm not a buyer and to buy there I'd apparently need to pay in dollars. Is there paid placement there? In one category, most of the top 50 are similars by the same person, then about 50 pics mostly similars by another person, then they seem more random.
Yes, it is impossible to take anyone seriously who gives IS, FT, & SS as examples of sites who aren't screwing us. ::)
You need to read what I actually wrote. I said pay us, the rest are just stealing from us. All of them are screwing us. But if somebody sends their photos to anyplace and then complains after about the deal and percentages, what does that say? You walked into a brick wall and now you blame the wall for being there?
You people here signed up and send your work to these places. Then spend all day after day, complaining about them.
Didn't you know what the pay was and the contract when you signed up? Don't you know what the pay is now and the contract? Why do people keep working for the low earners and crooks when there are 4 good agencies that pay back for our work?
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
This may be actually possible.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Maybe they will wake up when the royalties drop to less than a penny per download.
I have gotten alot of flak here for trying to wake up the masses.
-
Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times? ;D
"Only cry a loud about the good old times?"
I am not crying about the old good times… Not at all, never.
But I am not whimpering about the new [bad] times, like many here.
I am aware that the system is not the best today (if any "best" system could exist), but we live longer, we live better (and we lament more and more).
The problem is not a problem of changing prices on Shutterstock's ELs… This is a false problem, or only a very very little part of it.
The problem is too complex to be limited only to Shutterstock's ELs.
This is part of the result of how we have built our whole society. We are part of it, we are responsible of it. Constantly whining is just weakness and hypocrisy.
The problem is a general problem of society. A society based on exploitation of the most for the profit of the less.
The problem is a priority of values in life. (What is really important in life, what we really want in life?)
Money (and their possessors) rules the world, banks rule the world. All is done in the name of God Money…
If you really want to change things, change the system, the whole system…
There is could be a way: make the system to fail, theoretically it is very simple: make the banks fail and the whole system will collapse. Are you ready for this? How many people are ready for it?
If you are, do it. If you are not you can continue to whimper, you will change nothing at all (and fill more depressed).
But, in my opinion, this is another battle against windmills because you cannot fight and win against human nature (that is to be courageous in speech and coward in act).
there is some truth to it.
Anyway, I'm not depressed and it is not all hopeless... :o
Hey i feel good i like what i do! :-*
Just look at the share price Oringer is quite under pressure. The agency business collapses
by itself.
And if I can speed it up by talking about "unity"i do it. Thats it.
No reason to throw the towel.
Oringer took in millions every year before he took the company public, however than was not enough for him. He paid himself around 30 million at the time of the IPO and then sold a huge chunk 09/25/2013 2,530,000 Disposition at $57.3 per share. 144,969,000
Jon will be fine no matter what happens to SSTK and has earned himself an appropriate reputation among those who supported his road to success.
-
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Maybe they will wake up when the royalties drop to less than a penny per download.
I have gotten alot of flak here for trying to wake up the masses.
But you have been right, maybe some day more people will understand what you warn.
-
Maybe they will wake up when the royalties drop to less than a penny per download.
I have gotten alot of flak here for trying to wake up the masses.
I don't think they will wake up until images are being given away for free. After all, "a penny per download is better than nothing". Only when you can say "nothing is better than nothing", will it be stupid to leave a portfolio online. :)
-
The thing is, this "plan"started awhile back.
1. SS went public
2. Scott left SS
3. SS said they would keep being a part of this forum
4. SS stopped being a part of this forum
5. SS moved to the Empire State Building
6. SS cut commissions
7. SS got more posh real estate
The roadmap of what their intentions are is VERY VERY CLEAR.
DUH!!!
That was a dumb s h I t reply that added no * value to this discussion
I agreed with you Man. :DUH" means "It's Obvious"
-
As my turnover at SS is growing for the 10th month now from the first time I contributed mystuff in April last year, I do not really care for their royalty reduction on extended licences. I am very satisfied with Shutterstock and I am sure I will also for the future.
-
so you started 11 months ago, you have about 100 images online,still on 25 ct and you doubled your earnings from 2 dollar 50 to 5 dollar per month. now consider people who do this for a living who see their earnings decline each month up to point they need to find a second job.
-
The best unified solution that is slowly gaining traction (and would benefit everyone quicker if all the professional yet disgruntled contributors hopped on) is Symzio ([url]http://www.symzio.com/[/url]).
For the first time there is a real option here - so don't keep complaining unless you've done everything you can to free yourself from the yoke of agencies. You control most of your own pricing, control your entire collection, have two new independent platforms to sell your stuff, and most importantly, keep a minimum of 70% of all revenue up to 90%.
No one is going to hand you a solution - you need to work for it. No matter how many posts you put up, no matter how many angry retorts or insults you upvote, and no matter how many programs you opt out of, the only feasible way to create a noticeable impact is to compete.
([url]http://peoplestockimages.com/wp-content/uploads/_sz/9020.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.symzio.com/stock-photo/woman-ready-run[/url])
I agree with Robin. Thats why I've always said Micro is 20% + or - of my Income , It never was supposed to be more than that from Day one. Im a commercial Photographer and have been 25 Years before micro.....A gun for Hire, I do food menus,Seagrams,maytag,jewelry,Actor headshots and Furniture Catalogs,Glamour retouching for others,I teach,co-author Books ,Lectures and workshops around the country. And I Live Very well On the copyrights I own for 460TV shows,37 Films and 48 Music Albums. All of which I produced and own. I also have Major Interior designer contacts selling My paintings to Hotels, Banks,Whatever.. it's a business Guys and Im ALWAYS looking for opportunities..
And if your not ready or up to this? well then ya better get going or.....Take what they give or get out.
Thats the difference, You wanna be a working pro? get . out of this and do the work Promoting your work to clients. Ya, There still there and world wide But, you have to go get them if you have the right stuff and that means being able to shoot and process More than one or 2 subjects.. And have the equipment necessary to do it for whatever comes along. [A week ago, I shot a Insurance company Indoors...80 People scattered 2 floors on stairs.] 6 ..600 watt strobes 3 assistants.] Thats what it is. 5 hours for one shot.
I could never have made the money I need to live on Doing this alone and was always blown away by folks that could. Wanna know what makes me crazy?,, there are millions of great artists, Painters,Photographers,Musicians Dancers,actors..etc that will never be seen... Why?,, Because they dont possess the need to succeed, The drive,The self promotion and all the other stuff it takes.
I've said this a 100 times Shooting the Job is the easiest part. Getting the Job and keeping the job Is a 1000 times more difficult. especially since digital Came along.
If any of you can't or don't want to Promote yourselves....even a little. stick with Micro and accept whatever. Or...Put your foot down and say no More and make it a business. and as much as I respect Robin, Thats really Not the way either UNLESS you got some CHUTZPAH and go for it. Your the one that has to make it happen.
My Old friend Yuri was a textbook Perfect example of what Im saying He could have been anything he wanted. WORK ETHIC= Promotion=Just enough Talent.
Is there some BS involved? Of course. Don't fool yourselves.
Here's the method. when you see a crack in a door, do you wonder whats on the other side and peep through the crack ? Or do you just Knock the * thing down and walk in?? It better be the latter guys. It's not like you found the cure for cancer, Your taking Pictures.....Like a Million Others. Selling Is the art part.
Do I send everything I do to Microstock??...Hell No.
i agree...100%...it's very difficult indeed begin now to build up a career than 25 years ago...:)
i am moving to quality also, rm fine art assignment, finding an agent, already with 2 rm news editorial big agency...microstock for me is just the way now to collect some money to finance gears and travel...and i upload what in lightroom i catalog one or 2 star maximum. everything unique, with quality, with a theme behind no way.
now time to upload footage especially aerial. planning to add 1000 1500 dollar every month till i can, in the time moving completely to other area of photography, so next year i could just collect money sometimes from micro stock.
-
i hope all these agency fall in the long run, so we can start from zero with a new model maybe. but there will only be the amateur who is happy with 20 dollar month. the problem is that now there are 100000000 amateur in micro, dilution the profit fo everybody,,collecting 5 dollar month each with tiny portfolio. this way the agency can put off payment:) that' s why they are accepting everybody nowadays and adding millions of images.
-
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
-
nail on the head shadysue
-
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
You are right and people like Yuri Acurs spotted a business opportunity and turned it into a full time business .......it may be the last few years are an anomaly unfortunately.
-
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
yes but after you see complex shooting, interesting images...now i see only boring images...look for example food...then go to alma or offset and look the food images. you see what i mean. amateur.
-
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
You are right and people like Yuri Acurs spotted a business opportunity and turned it into a full time business .......it may be the last few years are an anomaly unfortunately.
yuri had a shooting at maldives costing him thousand dollar...other traveled to exotic location...like antartica...many did photoshooting costing thousand of dollar...i'm talking of the second period of micro stock, from 2009 to 2012 probably ended...now who is doing this? considering that big agency are uploading their portfolio...and a lot of people from poorer country are uploading model shooting that cost nothing.
-
Isn't microstock really meant to be about cheap and cheerful images as reflected in the price? The model of selling thousands of images to recoup huge outlay was never going to be sustainable.
-
istock made its success early on because it motivated people with talent to produce sellable images. For the people that produced those types of images on a consistent basis, the returns were great.
The turning points always happen when the agency starts to abuse its relationship with the contributor and takes more than it deserves. It amazes me to see how clueless the people are that are running these agencies. It probably has to do with the fact that these people think the company's success is directly tied with whatever decisions they themselves make when in fact, they have very little or no impact because its the content and nothing else that is driving the sales.
When that content is all coming from certain areas of the world that is culturally different than the buying market, the buyers will start looking elsewhere.
-
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
yes but after you see complex shooting, interesting images...now i see only boring images...look for example food...then go to alma or offset and look the food images. you see what i mean. amateur.
The sites pushed up the quality for a while, but most didn't try to raise prices, so it became unsustainable, and many of the pros have moved on.
Really, what can people reasonably expect for the price?
-
They may be greedy grasping etc but I really don't think Shutterstock is clueless.....I think what tends to be overlooked is the marketing element you can have the best content in the world but if no one knows you've got it its worthless and I suspect if customers of SS start telling them they haven't got the right content they would act
-
They may be greedy grasping etc but I really don't think Shutterstock is clueless.....I think what tends to be overlooked is the marketing element you can have the best content in the world but if no one knows you've got it its worthless and I suspect if customers of SS start telling them they haven't got the right content they would act
Only if it would make the stock jump.
-
Isn't microstock really meant to be about cheap and cheerful images as reflected in the price? The model of selling thousands of images to recoup huge outlay was never going to be sustainable.
That's what I always thought the intention was. If an ad agency or other company wanted excellent, high-dollar shots, they could go to the macro agencies. I thought microstock was to fulfill the low end of the market, the small to medium sized companies who couldn't afford $100-$200 per image and were ok with a little less quality. The original business model didn't change just because pro photographers thought it should compensate them for high-dollar shoots.
With that being said, as an early contributor to istock, then other agencies, I always thought that our earnings would increase as the years went by, not go down. >:(
-
istock had a different strategy. With their upload limits, they severly limited the growth of the stock factories, while giving exclusive artists a real boost. I think 40% or more of the content on istock used to be exclusive.
The single artist, even if they work full time, will produce something between 150-300 files a month. Many quality artists only upload around 100 files a month. But as an istock exclusive, we had average download values of 4-12 dollars, plus excellent visibility. To encourage single artists to work fulltime for istock and invest strongly in their shootings was the clear goal of management and community.
But without upload limits, the single artists gets lost in the flood, demand is much lower than files coming in, the whole system of getting hundreds or thousands of downloads per file is dead.
So those who do stock fulltime are forced to move on to the places that encourage single, full time artists, not the stock machines.
I really don´t see how Shutterstock can get out of this dilemma. Single, full time artists need a special environment to work in, that they simply cannot provide.
Also I don´t really think they need us, the mix of stock factories and happy amateurs who just need a little gear money seems to work really well for them.
It would need very major changes, to make Shutterstock the first agency a full time stock artist will focus on. They will always be part of the mix that you upload to and seem to be the best of the micros, but unless the content is ultra, utra generic, I see no way you can justify investing in shootings for Shutterstock.
The number of full time stock artists seems to be going down anyway, so why cater to a dying breed. They can always get our content for Offset via specialized agencies.
-
They may be greedy grasping etc but I really don't think Shutterstock is clueless.....I think what tends to be overlooked is the marketing element you can have the best content in the world but if no one knows you've got it its worthless and I suspect if customers of SS start telling them they haven't got the right content they would act
Only if it would make the stock jump.
Well of course why would you think they would do anything otherwise?
-
Isn't microstock really meant to be about cheap and cheerful images as reflected in the price? The model of selling thousands of images to recoup huge outlay was never going to be sustainable.
That's what I always thought the intention was. If an ad agency or other company wanted excellent, high-dollar shots, they could go to the macro agencies. I thought microstock was to fulfill the low end of the market, the small to medium sized companies who couldn't afford $100-$200 per image and were ok with a little less quality. The original business model didn't change just because pro photographers thought it should compensate them for high-dollar shoots.
With that being said, as an early contributor to istock, then other agencies, I always thought that our earnings would increase as the years went by, not go down. >:(
I think maybe what wasn't anticipated was the decreasing cost of High quality cameras generating suppliers faster than customers ......a basic example of supply and demand.
-
Isn't microstock really meant to be about cheap and cheerful images as reflected in the price? The model of selling thousands of images to recoup huge outlay was never going to be sustainable.
selling it cheap is not the problem. the golden M and KFC sold quick non-cordon bleu food cheaply
and is still thriving with lots of copycats.
the issue is not that microstock cannot sustain at low prices. the issue is when you give away lifetime-usage at low price. imagine a eat all you want for a lifetime $15 restuarant...
and you have ss is etc.
even at a so-called all you can eat at $15 still restricts you from coming in to eat
and taking away more food in a paper-bag. there is someone watching you to make sure you
do not replace yourself with your friend,etc... to make sure all you can eat
means all your stomach can eat without taking anything home with you.
you can go to the WC to puke it all out, and eat some more. but you cannot bring anything home .
microstock lets you bring all the food home too... after you ate and puke and ate and puke..
that is what makes microstock unsustainable
-
Who offers download all you want for $15? I believe Yay might but that was a disaster.......I'm not sure the analogy works.
I don't think microstock is unsustainable but trying to sell Cordon Bleu food at KFC is.
-
istock had a different strategy. With their upload limits, they severly limted the growth of the stock factories, while giving exclusive artists a real boost. I think 40% or more of the content on istock used to be exclusive.
The single artist, even if they work full time, will produce something between 150-300 files a month. Many quality artists only upload around 100 files a month. But as an istock exclusive, we had average download values of 4-12 dollars, plus excellent visibility. To encourage single artists to work fulltime for istock and invest strongly in their shootings was the clear goal of management and community.
But without upload limits, the single artists gets lost in the flood, demand is much lower than files coming in, the whole system of getting hundreds or thousands of downloads per file is dead.
So those who do stock fulltime are forced to move on to the places that encourage single, full time artists, not the stock machines.
I really don´t see how Shutterstock can get out of this dilemma. Single, full time artists need a special environment to work in, that they simply cannot provide.
Also I don´t really think they need us, the mix of stock factories and happy amateurs who just need a little gear money seems to work really well for them.
It would need very major changes, to make Shutterstock the first agency a full time stock artist will focus on. They will always be part of the mix that you upload to and seem to be the best of the micros, but unless the content is ultra, utra generic, I see no way you can justify investing in shootings for Shutterstock.
The number of full time stock artists seems to be going down anyway, so why cater to a dying breed. They can always get our content for Offset via specialized agencies.
Agree. they [The smart ones] Have been gone quite awhile.
-
I wonder how many people that work at Shutterstock also have a portfolio and get a regular income there? Lots of people probably have shares, but that is not the same as using your own product and platform. Downloading images won´t give you those insights either (except for how useful the search engine is).
If 40% of everyone there had a portfolio and just tried to get a steady 500 dollars a month, nothing fancy, just a reliable side income, I think by themselves they would come up with all kind of brilliant new ideas what can be done to increase sales.
But if the majority of people only focus on search and usability of the site and don´t engage with the commercial and entrepreneurial aspect...how will they improve that?
It´s a bit like Mark Zuckerberg not using facebook. Just looking at it from outside or just looking at the code.
Maybe they already have a large part of their team as active users as well, I don´t know. But reading the forums and various stock community boards, I don´t notice people saying they are both on the SS team and also trying to make money using the platform.
On the old istock all reviewers and many admins had portfolios. Many people in leading positions had very, very successful portfolios. So if something broke down, sales slowed, they were affected as well. Also helps with community insight if the team are also users.
But again, perhaps the detached approach is what really works for SS, to see themselves as a tech company first, not a bunch of small time entrepreneurs on a platform.
I am sure they will still come up with many interesting ideas. Unfortunately I just don´t see it as a platform that specializes in what I need as a full time single artist and small business owner. But as a part of an overall stock approach, I am sure they will always be supplied.
All the people I have met from Shutterstock are very smart and completely open to critique. They hire good people. If they got them all involved in the platform directly and personally, I wonder what would happen.
-
^^ buy some shares from ss than you are on both sides. :o
-
[
The number of full time stock artists seems to be going down anyway, so why cater to a dying breed.
[/quote]
As usual you offer a thoughtful and good analysis....I just wonder if there is any evidence for you last statement?
-
[
The number of full time stock artists seems to be going down anyway, so why cater to a dying breed.
As usual you offer a thoughtful and good analysis....I just wonder if there is any evidence for you last statement?
[/quote]
Well, you can look at how many people are signing up to various boards, including this one. If there were more and more full timers, you would also have a lot more serious part timers, asking lots more questions etc..
Overall I don´t see many new people getting in, here and also on the facebook boards. There was a wave of new groups and boards popping up after fotolia and istock cracked down on artists, but otherwise if you walk around the online community, you see the same faces everywhere.
This was different when there was serious growth and people were optimistic about their earning prospects. We got tons of new people getting into the community, networking their way around.
And then I just look around my friends and longterm stock artists I follow, unless they made it into the small agencies - blend, stocksy,etc...they all seem to be working on plan B, getting back into assignment work or whatever else they did before doing stock fulltime.
I am sure there are still tons of people signing up, trying to make some money and with mobile uploads, there is a new group of people being reached. But at least in the community that I am active in, I don´t see a lot of interest of taking their stock journey further, they seem to be content with getting lucky and having some money for gear or a dinner with friends. And they certainly don´t plan and invest in productions.
But just following numbers of people registering here, should be a good indicator, this is still the biggest board in the English language community and if you are serious about making money with stock, you will always check back here.
Full time stock artists need a reliable income model to be able to streamline and finance their productions. That seems to be more and more difficult, even Yuri Arcurs and his huge team hit the wall and decided to try a form of exclusivity with Getty to make it work.
If the biggest stock machine in the industry is in trouble, the normal, single artist has no real chance. We cannot all transform into large studios with many employees to shoot more and more content.
Most of us are single entrepreneurs and don´t want to run a large business. So we have to adapt our stores to accept the flood, which means going after plan B or shifting attention to smaller agencies that will bundle our work and basically function as a stock factory under a brand name with many single artists.
-
I do wonder with the relentless negativity on here whether it puts people off.....you are probably right though and have more knowledge of that community than me. Thing is from the agencies point of view they are getting ever more numbers so they don't care.....unless customers start complaining about quality (or more importantly start going elsewhere)
-
If people make money, nothing puts them off. And the flood shows you how many people have signed up and are trying. But once they move towards taking it seriously, they start networking and will show up here and elsewhere.
I am not sure the agencies will miss us at all. The stock machines create great quality, so do the smaller cooperatives like Blendimages, westend61 etc...that distribute via the agencies.
So they will always get high quality from them.
Snapshot images come from hobby artists and mobile uploaders...no I think their main problem is how to subdivide the flood to make it easier for their customer to find what they need.
The only advantage of full time artists is that we often really explore one niche in depth over many years. Some become experts in just making cakes from all around the world, others focus only on disabled children, the next has a huge portfolio of always holding up the same cute object in front of the worlds landmarks...or just movement blurs of these locations. The in depth knowledge on a special theme, with lots of experience what customers really need (because I happen to be a horse breeder, or doctor or restaurant owner myself)...that is the real advantage of the full time single artists.
They see their portfolio as a business and really make a huge effort to offer a complete service to their customer.
But you need a platform that encourages people to see themselves as creative entrepreneurs and they need enough money to be able to really get into their niche.
So quality of files is not what they will miss, but diversity, that will certainly go down, because everyone is just playing it safe, shooting ultrageneric duplicates, if there is no money in specialization.
-
We don't know who the lurkers are here. I think there are lots of full timers that probably glance at this forum occasionally but don't waste their time posting.
-
I am sure there are. But if people were optimistic and the number of full timers was growing, you would see a steady rise in people signing up the way it was in the good old days.
ETA: number of viewers on active threads don´t seem to be going up either. Maybe leaf could enlighten us, but wether registering or just reading here, it doesn´t feel like lots of new people coming in.
-
When micro started, it was mostly 'amateurs' who were submitting, it's not a 'now' thing. In fact, iS started as a sharing site, with no money changing hands.
yes but after you see complex shooting, interesting images...now i see only boring images...look for example food...then go to alma or offset and look the food images. you see what i mean. amateur.
The sites pushed up the quality for a while, but most didn't try to raise prices, so it became unsustainable, and many of the pros have moved on.
Really, what can people reasonably expect for the price?
it's what i'm saying...the quality has fallen down in the last 2 years. and will . that's why i upload garbage. just to stir things up and hoping to improve sales. i not certainly upload quality work or series.
-
We don't know who the lurkers are here. I think there are lots of full timers that probably glance at this forum occasionally but don't waste their time posting.
This is true. I get site mails all the time here from contributors who do not post publicly. Some of my best information comes from those communications.
-
We don't know who the lurkers are here. I think there are lots of full timers that probably glance at this forum occasionally but don't waste their time posting.
This is true. I get site mails all the time here from contributors who do not post publicly. Some of my best information comes from those communications.
Since stock has become so saturated with contributors and the royalties keep going down, there isn't much to come and discuss anymore. One's time can be better spent doing more constructive things, like working on plan B, spending time with family, etc. There is only so much complaining and pontificating on what is wrong with the micros and how they can be fixed that people can do.
-
...
also, i read somewhere of how some ex-micro photographers have gone onto ebay to sell framed photos independently too. i don't remember where i read it, but they too have gone away from microstock, and at that time, sounded like they are doing well.
at least i don't see them coming back to micro.
I searched through Ebay forms. In instructions (English only "sell as digital download") they allow to sell digital downloads, and this functionality is enabled in one of categories. I din't find this category in French interface at all. In the same time i saw some people succeeded to insert their photos with sending by e-mail delivery. Ok; But more heavy problem is return. With Paypal rules seller on Ebay is open to all types of fraud from buyer. Does somebody have seller experience to share here? Instructions on Ebay seems are outdated. I saw "refuse return" option taken out from the form.
-
I have old friends Putting there stuff [and mine] Onto products and selling On amazon.
-
You need to read what I actually wrote. I said pay us, the rest are just stealing from us. All of them are screwing us. But if somebody sends their photos to anyplace and then complains after about the deal and percentages, what does that say? You walked into a brick wall and now you blame the wall for being there?
You people here signed up and send your work to these places. Then spend all day after day, complaining about them.
Didn't you know what the pay was and the contract when you signed up? Don't you know what the pay is now and the contract? Why do people keep working for the low earners and crooks when there are 4 good agencies that pay back for our work?
You're kidding, right? The pay and the contracts were way different when a lot of us signed with these agencies. I don't complain about the (few) agencies that stick to the contracts that I signed up for. The complaints come when the agencies change the TOS to screw the contributors and there is no negotiations, and your only choice is to pull your portfolio and lose all your efforts and income at once, or leave it and see your income drop from the greedy new policies that we DIDN'T sign up for.
And BTW, the 4 "good agencies" you mentioned are also among the biggest crooks. Since they account for the most volume, most people put up with their carp, but don't kid yourself they're good guys or your friend.
-
I am sure there are. But if people were optimistic and the number of full timers was growing, you would see a steady rise in people signing up the way it was in the good old days.
ETA: number of viewers on active threads don´t seem to be going up either. Maybe leaf could enlighten us, but wether registering or just reading here, it doesn´t feel like lots of new people coming in.
The trend seems to be going the other way. Lots of people that were members for years have dropped out of site.
-
wrong post
-
You need to read what I actually wrote. I said pay us, the rest are just stealing from us. All of them are screwing us. But if somebody sends their photos to anyplace and then complains after about the deal and percentages, what does that say? You walked into a brick wall and now you blame the wall for being there?
You people here signed up and send your work to these places. Then spend all day after day, complaining about them.
Didn't you know what the pay was and the contract when you signed up? Don't you know what the pay is now and the contract? Why do people keep working for the low earners and crooks when there are 4 good agencies that pay back for our work?
You're kidding, right? The pay and the contracts were way different when a lot of us signed with these agencies. I don't complain about the (few) agencies that stick to the contracts that I signed up for. The complaints come when the agencies change the TOS to screw the contributors and there is no negotiations, and your only choice is to pull your portfolio and lose all your efforts and income at once, or leave it and see your income drop from the greedy new policies that we DIDN'T sign up for.
And BTW, the 4 "good agencies" you mentioned are also among the biggest crooks. Since they account for the most volume, most people put up with their carp, but don't kid yourself they're good guys or your friend.
Well said!
Until we start The Union nothing will ever change!!!
Simple example of how contributors are passive is clearly this thread.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/so-how-much-money-revostock-owe-you-let's-sum-up-the-total/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-video/so-how-much-money-revostock-owe-you-let's-sum-up-the-total/)
They should at least call media to expose the scam, if not fight for almost 60K+.
But WHO is going to do that?
-
Just wanted to drop by and say that there are many who read these forums and don't post regularly including myself. Thank you for the interesting and important discussions.
As a video only contributor to SS I can say that the trend at least for now is slightly up in sales for 2 years in a row. It may be that there is still some growth left in video compared to photo.