pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Increase Print Limits to 500,000 and other changes  (Read 8669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Me


« on: March 30, 2015, 16:18 »
+15


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2015, 16:23 »
+6
 >:(

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2015, 16:34 »
-10
Some if the changes look better for the contributor.

If someone needed 400,000 copies and an EL didn't cover it the buyer would go elsewhere and now they wont.

But yes it is a loss but at the same time a win.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2015, 16:37 »
+12
Quote
As with any changes we make, we have given careful consideration to how we can increase value to both contributors and customers as we continue to grow.

Sure, I need to sell 79 subs now to cover the loss of an EL.

Its never better for contributors, SS knows this, all agencies know this. Stop selling carrots to us, please !!!!

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2015, 16:53 »
+5
I now see that 500,000 is for a standard license not an EL!!!!

So now we are right up the alley with all the other sites.

So how much we get for an EL now?

500,000 for .38 cents!!!!! WOW

Quote
IMAGE LICENSES

    A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
        As a digital reproduction, including on websites, in online advertising, in social media, in mobile advertising, mobile "apps", software, e-cards, e-publications (e-books, e-magazines, blogs, etc.), and in online media (including on video-sharing services such as YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, etc., subject to the budget limitations set forth in sub-paragraph I.a.i.4 below);
        Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, billboards, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate;

« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2015, 17:06 »
+7
I now see that 500,000 is for a standard license not an EL!!!!

So now we are right up the alley with all the other sites.

So how much we get for an EL now?

500,000 for .38 cents!!!!! WOW

Quote
IMAGE LICENSES

    A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
        As a digital reproduction, including on websites, in online advertising, in social media, in mobile advertising, mobile "apps", software, e-cards, e-publications (e-books, e-magazines, blogs, etc.), and in online media (including on video-sharing services such as YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, etc., subject to the budget limitations set forth in sub-paragraph I.a.i.4 below);
        Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, billboards, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate;

LOL, because 250,000 for $0.38 was so much better?

U11


« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2015, 17:35 »
+3
500,000 for .38 cents!!!!! WOW
I dont understand why SS should change it , customer always can buy 2 x .38 and get 500K even until today

« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2015, 19:30 »
+29
As usual, none of that is good news for contributors.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2015, 19:37 »
0
...
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 19:53 by ruxpriencdiam »

« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2015, 20:00 »
+21
You could view it as a price cut - when you offer more rights for the same money.

Competing on price and then saying we'll make it up in volume (more customers will want to buy our work) is an old, old, old argument. It's almost never true, although SS has a better track record than most of the agencies in boosting overall business and raising our income.

"As with any changes we make, we have given careful consideration to how we can increase value to both contributors and customers as we continue to grow."

"By offering terms that are on parity with our market, we expect to continue to add more customers who are happy to download your content."

This is smoothly written wording attempting justification for a price cut.


« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2015, 20:24 »
+25
I wish one agency would just say 'ok, we'll f*ck you over because capitalism/profit" and I'd have more respect for that rather than this carefully worded sh*t.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2015, 20:24 »
+9
Hope you don't mind that I reduced and condensed your post.  :)

This is smoothly written wording attempting justification for a price cut.

This is an announcement for customers, not for us. "We hope that youll be as excited about these changes as we are..."  :-\

Probably won't make a bit of difference for me and I don't know how many people would buy two subs for 38c vs one because they need 500,000 copies. But no matter how they want to promote this, it's a change for matching competition.

Just another notch in the speedometer measuring the race to the bottom for contributor rewards and earnings.

« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2015, 21:49 »
+9
Theres' plenty more "positioning" to come. Let us wait to see what Adobe does and we can expect a competitive response.  The cost benefit must state that we expect to generate more revenue from annual subscription plans that "exceeds" what we make in the cost of an EL.  So SS is willingly sacrificing EL's (which contributors completely rely on to boost their already declining commissions) in exchange for more annual sub packages. I am sure SS will benefit from this HUGELY, while contributors take it up that kazoo for the FIRST major money grab by SS.  I keep stating in other posts the same thing Jo Ann said.  They always use the "WE WILL MAKE IT UP IN VOLUME" argument.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 08:00 by Mantis »

Me


« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2015, 23:53 »
+6
I anticipate this will cost me in the region of $200 or so a month, and it will not be made up on volume. Other sites have 500,000 limits and an EL is like gold dust on those sites, SS will now be the same. You have to assume SS did the math and if they will respond no doubt it will be along the lines of "over X% of our EL purchases are for print runs of over 500,000 so this will have little impact to the numbers purchased" which really translates to "please bend over and touch your toes whilst we provide shaft you with figures we know you cannot check but please rest assured we are better off and fuc% you very much".

« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2015, 23:59 »
+5
Can someone tell me what gets a print run of more than 500,000 ?

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2015, 02:01 »
+3
Good move again iStock!


Semmick Photo

« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2015, 02:05 »
+4
Can someone tell me what gets a print run of more than 500,000 ?
I don't know but we lose all ELs for any print run over 250000. ELs on other sites with 500k print run  have always been rare. SS is now in the same boat

« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2015, 02:58 »
+6
Dear SS, maybe you don't know, but competiting with pricing, cutting it just... doesn't work  ::) You can dream and promise to us, contributors, but you are naive and must have closed eyes what is going on around.
From 250k to 500k means giving 250k for free and throwing away 28$ for author, am I right? Well now, in response every other agency will get the same idea and give even more images for free, and again and again, freeee.... How do you expect to increase earnings when more and more is free?  :o
Please, someone explain this to me, as I honestly don't get it...
You don't have to be big businessman, analyst to see how this easy system work. And why do you follow the worse agencies example?

In short words - Shutterstock, you are going the wrong way!!!

« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2015, 03:01 »
0
Trying to look on the bright side, I wonder how many of the ELs were for runs of above 250,000 but less than 500,000. It might be very few. There are other things that ELs are needed for http://www.shutterstock.com/license_comparison.mhtml


Me


« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2015, 03:01 »
+5
Can someone tell me what gets a print run of more than 500,000 ?

Newspapers, monthly magazines, council publications, political newsletters, promotional flyers for national events, door drops, etc. You would be surprised, 500,000 in print industry is nothing really.

Me


« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2015, 03:05 »
+2
Trying to look on the bright side, I wonder how many of the ELs were for runs of above 250,000 but less than 500,000. It might be very few. There are other things that ELs are needed for http://www.shutterstock.com/license_comparison.mhtml


This is the information we will never get, but basically all of those will not now need to buy an EL, whether it is 5% or 50% the contributors lose that income now.

« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2015, 03:42 »
+1
Els have gone right down for me this year.  Instead of averaging 8 or 9 a month I am averaging 2 or 3,with only 1 this month.

« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2015, 04:12 »
+2
What ELs? Haven't had one (or a SOD over $5) at SS for 6 months. Shock of the year was getting an EL at BS for $25, didn't think they had it in them!

« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2015, 04:17 »
-3
A lot of conclusions, but when we can't see the portfolios on the every particular contributor who make this conclusions this mean nothing, or will not be objective. One thing is to say no ELs from portfolio 500 images and other thing is from portfolio 5-10K or 50K images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
6678 Views
Last post September 29, 2011, 20:45
by rinderart
7 Replies
3117 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 15:21
by gbalex
108 Replies
44203 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 18:07
by OM
38 Replies
7939 Views
Last post May 17, 2015, 02:16
by Sammy the Cat
15 Replies
4513 Views
Last post December 27, 2016, 01:13
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results