pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Increase Print Limits to 500,000 and other changes  (Read 8670 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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2015, 05:03 »
0
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.
Its about the print run allowed within the EL, not portfolio size. I didnt get much ELs but surely I will get even less now. Thats the whole point.

It will be interesting to see for the people who did get a lot of ELs if they maintain their EL volume or if it drops over time.

Me


« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2015, 05:37 »
0
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.
Its about the print run allowed within the EL, not portfolio size. I didnt get much ELs but surely I will get even less now. Thats the whole point.

It will be interesting to see for the people who did get a lot of ELs if they maintain their EL volume or if it drops over time.

Agreed, I get between 10 - 15 a month and as stated previously I am expecting to see a drop of around $200 or 7 ELs a month. Nothing to base that on, just a gut feel. Portfolio size of nearly 10,000


ShadySue

« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2015, 06:56 »
+2
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.
Its about the print run allowed within the EL, not portfolio size. I didnt get much ELs but surely I will get even less now. Thats the whole point.

It will be interesting to see for the people who did get a lot of ELs if they maintain their EL volume or if it drops over time.

Agreed, I get between 10 - 15 a month and as stated previously I am expecting to see a drop of around $200 or 7 ELs a month. Nothing to base that on, just a gut feel. Portfolio size of nearly 10,000
But as stated above, if someone wanted a print run of 500,000, why wouldn't they just have downloaded two subs allowing them 250,000 prints each?

« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2015, 07:29 »
+5
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.
Its about the print run allowed within the EL, not portfolio size. I didnt get much ELs but surely I will get even less now. Thats the whole point.

It will be interesting to see for the people who did get a lot of ELs if they maintain their EL volume or if it drops over time.

Agreed, I get between 10 - 15 a month and as stated previously I am expecting to see a drop of around $200 or 7 ELs a month. Nothing to base that on, just a gut feel. Portfolio size of nearly 10,000
But as stated above, if someone wanted a print run of 500,000, why wouldn't they just have downloaded two subs allowing them 250,000 prints each?

I'm no legal expert, but I don't think these numbers can be added up. A standard license gives you (gave you) a print run of up to 250.000. A second standard license doesn't change that, you still only have the rights to print up to 250.000 copies.

That's how I understand those licenses.

« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2015, 08:11 »
+1
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


Leave it to you to bring logic into an emotional topics, Paul. Seriously, I hope your point has weight to those other EL factors. I would love to know the composition of sales amongst those various EL uses.  I generally get 1-3 EL's per month per month. It will be interesting to see if I (and everyone else) am overreacting.  I hope I am, but I suspect I'm not. Unfortunately, SS would not have made this move unless there was a correlations between EL's and print runs. They probably did some focus groups, customer surveys, etc to determine that lifting that ceiling was

1. Beneficial to the customer
2. Beneficial to SS
3. Not beneficial to the contributor so they use the "make it up in volume" excuse.

Honestly, SS, like any other agency, has absolutely no worries about contributors jumping ship, they know it, we know it. For every image that gets pulled there are 100 or more to replace it. Their entire logic was based probably mostly on #2, and had collateral benefits to buyers and collateral damage to contributors. It was only a matter of time before SS joined the ranks of other agencies.   

objowl

« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2015, 08:18 »
+1
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!!!

I assume it's all about maintaining / increasing market share, sometimes you have to lose a few bucks to protect the rest.  It is also possible that a lot of ELs are sold as SODs so little to lose.

« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2015, 12:20 »
+10
Pathetic

These continued downward actions by shutterstock make submitting new images to shutterstock counterproductive.

Most of the key executive players at shutterstock are in this for the short term, they do not care one iota what happens to the value of our self funded & produced assets.

The VC crowd stands to make many more millions by driving up SSTK stock prices, than they ever will via microstock or video revenue. These guys are in it for the short term and they will do what ever it takes to get what they want including bleeding us dry.

Through their actions it is abundantly obvious that they do not consider the welfare of contributors.

If contributors continue to fail to stand up to them, we can count on increased devaluation of our assets. We are dealing with the same company who has not raised pricing or given raises since 2008 so that they could capture the lions share of the market.

For New Contributors who are still in the dark here is who we are dealing with. (The rest of you can ignore this post)

The below document reports that Insight Venture Partners worked closely with Jon, to recruit a new executive team at Shutterstock, in particular the President, CFO, CTO, VPCD and other mid-level managers.

Insight Venture Partners
Creating a Successful IPO

http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdf

Insight Venture Capitol also own a significant portion of SSTK stock under various entities. These are large and easily tracked INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC

SSTK Insider Activity (SEC Form 4)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades

Recent INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT's SSTK stock sales.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractions

Shutterstock, Inc. Ownership Summary Including Multiple Insight Venture Capitol Entities
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary#ixzz3IafANBvJ

« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2015, 16:22 »
+1
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.

Well put... FIRST major money grab by SS, cuz you can bet it's not the last.


« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2015, 16:24 »
+11
The first major money grab was when they stopped paying us for referrals.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2015, 16:28 »
+4
When they start increasing their revenue by such actions a raise is far far away.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2015, 16:54 »
+10
Interesting new approach. They must have learned that getting blood from contributors by making a massive flesh wound once a year isn't a good idea. They get the same amount of blood now by using the Vampire Bat technique to quietly and painlessly take a little blood more often.

« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2015, 17:58 »
+6
If there was a syndicate of micro-photographers, this could easily be reverted.

The truth is, agencies rely on us as much as we depend on them. If the top 500 contributors got together (95% of content) things would be SO different. How come that never happened?


ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2015, 19:05 »
+7
If the top 500 contributors got together (95% of content) things would be SO different. How come that never happened?
Individual sweetheart deals with the agencies?
Why would they care about the plebs?

« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2015, 19:47 »
+2
If there was a syndicate of micro-photographers, this could easily be reverted.

The truth is, agencies rely on us as much as we depend on them. If the top 500 contributors got together (95% of content) things would be SO different. How come that never happened?


Because it's too easy to divide and conquer and even the top folks are a sufficiently diverse group, with diverse interests and approaches, that even if everyone's upset with the agencies, that's about all they have in common.

Also, there's too much power in the hands of too few agencies (it was Getty and as they are fading a little, Shutterstock is rising). Contributors would do better if they could play the agencies off against one another and agencies were competing for contributors.

The Stock Artists Alliance was around for a few years trying to battle Getty's many predatory anti-photographer moves, but they folded a couple of years ago.

We've done reasonably well with some minor actions, but over the long haul, even those can't wield enough influence over a long enough period to get the agencies to make substantial changes (Dollar Photo Club being a recent example; their collection shrunk and they made some concessions and then kept right on * - although the fact that they keep paying people to say "DPC is so wonderful" on twitter suggests things aren't all rosy)


Uncle Pete

« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2015, 20:51 »
+2
And now explain why they folded please?

In October 2009 SAA formally became a member of the Alliance of Visual Artists an umbrella organization representing six photographic associations and some 45,000 professional photographers (direct and affiliated members) worldwide, led by Professional Photographers of America.

http://allianceofvisualartists.com/

I'm still not sure if these groups work for us or for their own egos and profits. I'd like to know?


The Stock Artists Alliance was around for a few years trying to battle Getty's many predatory anti-photographer moves, but they folded a couple of years ago.



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2015, 02:10 »
-4
print limits ?? that's a non issue, in a few years the printed newspapers will disappear.



U11


« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2015, 08:34 »
0
print limits ?? that's a non issue, in a few years the printed newspapers will disappear.
the same way as  movie theaters disappeared after VHS introduction?
but who knows . So I am not voting your post down
 

ShadySue

« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2015, 08:41 »
0
Anyway, it's pretty moot.
38c or whatever for 500k print repros vs the same amount for web usage which could be seen by many more eyes and be 'live' for much, much longer.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2015, 12:46 »
+1
Yes, didn't I write that?

"SAA members have received official notification that they will be able to move their memberships to either PPA or ASMP for the duration of their current membership period."

Also: To qualify for tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(6), all of a nonprofit's earnings must be reinvested into the organization and may not benefit any individual member or shareholder.

SAA was a non-profit and couldn't make enough in memberships, to stay in business.

We can still join PPA or ASMP.

PPA has legislation advocacy and works with copyright issues.

ASMP is more about Media Photographers, maybe a better match? http://asmp.org/

I don't know how either feels about Microstock at this point in time. Maybe there needs to be a chapter of ASMP for Microstock, to serve the special interests of people who work this industry.


http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2011/03/stock-artists-alliance-closes-doors.html

« Reply #45 on: April 02, 2015, 17:41 »
+2
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.

Well maybe there is bigger print runs in countries other than mine but for example.

Sydney Morning Herald - Saturday = 223,000  (2013) Mon-Frid (132,000)
Women Weekly on of the biggest magazines in Australia (printed monthly :) ) = 459,000 (2013)
Council publications => there aren't 500,000 dwellings in a council area.

Sure there are things like the New York times, time magazine but I don't think there are as many as you say and year on year there will be less. Number of print runs allowed without EL should be reduced not increased.






« Reply #46 on: April 02, 2015, 19:28 »
+6
I just wonder if Scott Braut left more because he knew clawbacks were forthcoming and did not want to be a part of that. I have ZERO PROOF, just wondering because he was in here interacting so often on most SS issues. Not surprising to me that nobody from SS is here answering/clarifying this particular issue. That's tantamount to 'guilty as charged'.


« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2015, 06:03 »
-7
So Shutter develops new business models to earn more profit, for both them and me. Thats fine. They adapt to the market.

I think this step is very elegant, compared to many steps on istock, when they began to prey on their contributors, and alianated them.
It might be a win win situation, or at least it sounds like one.

There is a mighty big difference in how the two companies address their contributors. It feels like Shutter is making business with us, contrary to iStock who used us for their business.


« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2015, 08:00 »
+5
So Shutter develops new business models to earn more profit, for both them and me. Thats fine. They adapt to the market.

I think this step is very elegant, compared to many steps on istock, when they began to prey on their contributors, and alianated them.
It might be a win win situation, or at least it sounds like one.

There is a mighty big difference in how the two companies address their contributors. It feels like Shutter is making business with us, contrary to iStock who used us for their business.

This is likely just step #1. Lipstick on a pig kind a thing.

« Reply #49 on: April 06, 2015, 08:59 »
+5
I wrote to SS to register my extreme disapproval of this terrible move, but they never responded. So I will say it here. I've been licensing my images for print for 30 years, and there is rarely even a print run of 250,000 let alone 500,000. In fact, years ago I tried to get them to reduce the 250,000 to 10,000 where it belongs. And now this. As I said at the advent of the stupid stupid DPC, anyone who does not close their account at Fotolia has no call to be complaining about this new development because you're adding to the mess. I am disgusted.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2015, 09:03 »
0
I wrote to SS to register my extreme disapproval of this terrible move, but they never responded. So I will say it here. I've been licensing my images for print for 30 years, and there is rarely even a print run of 250,000 let alone 500,000. In fact, years ago I tried to get them to reduce the 250,000 to 10,000 where it belongs. And now this. As I said at the advent of the stupid stupid DPC, anyone who does not close their account at Fotolia has no call to be complaining about this new development because you're adding to the mess. I am disgusted.
Print runs on ELs were long time 500K on FT, CanStockPhoto and DT, even before DPC came along.

« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2015, 09:26 »
+3
I wrote to SS to register my extreme disapproval of this terrible move, but they never responded. So I will say it here. I've been licensing my images for print for 30 years, and there is rarely even a print run of 250,000 let alone 500,000. In fact, years ago I tried to get them to reduce the 250,000 to 10,000 where it belongs. And now this. As I said at the advent of the stupid stupid DPC, anyone who does not close their account at Fotolia has no call to be complaining about this new development because you're adding to the mess. I am disgusted.
Print runs on ELs were long time 500K on FT, CanStockPhoto and DT, even before DPC came along.
Hi Ron, where have you been. Yes, I know that, and it's why I either don't upload at all to those sites or I don't give them everything I have. Shutterstock was the last bastion, and now they're going down too.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2015, 09:33 »
+2
Ah ok, makes sense.

I am no longer allowed to post on the SS forum.  ;) But I found my peace and quiet here on MSG. Things are nice around here. Less drama, less volatile. Who would have thought!  ;D

« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2015, 10:18 »
+2
Ah ok, makes sense.

I am no longer allowed to post on the SS forum.  ;) But I found my peace and quiet here on MSG. Things are nice around here. Less drama, less volatile. Who would have thought!  ;D
OH I didn't know that! It's pretty boring there without you, Mike, Steve,and Jens.

« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2015, 12:56 »
+4
There is a mighty big difference in how the two companies address their contributors. It feels like Shutter is making business with us, contrary to iStock who used us for their business.


I would point you to this page - their Leadership team - and there is no one there who has anything to do with contributors. Says a lot

http://www.shutterstock.com/aboutus.mhtml

I didn't realize that Scott Braut left in December. There's someone who is VP, Content Operations (i.e. not Scott's title) and who was there before Scott left. The linkedin corporate-speak describing his job includes:

"Hired to scale global content operations; extending international teams and content management systems to achieve new levels of operational excellence while driving iterative process innovation & improvement disciplines while strengthening key performance metrics.

Includes:
- Content operations vision and strategy
- Media technical and compliance standards
- Content supply predictive modeling and analysis
- Revenue growth and business strategy
- Operations production, financial and cost modeling
- Workflow development and process improvement
- Contributor and artist support and success
- Content integration, integrity and quality evaluation"


If I were to translate "Content supply predictive modeling and analysis" it might be something like: if we make contributor terms & payouts x% worse, how much content will we lose?

And I would think "Contributor and artist support and success" might include talking with contributors, not just publishing stuff in a blog.

I don't think Paul has been in here though.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2015, 13:26 »
0

OH I didn't know that! It's pretty boring there without you, Mike, Steve,and Jens.
Thanks, but they dont want me there.  ;) Its ok though

Cheers

« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2015, 13:39 »
+1

OH I didn't know that! It's pretty boring there without you, Mike, Steve,and Jens.
Thanks, but they dont want me there.  ;) Its ok though

Cheers
It looks to me like they just don't want anything interesting!


« Reply #57 on: April 06, 2015, 15:09 »
+1
Maybe I have misunderstood the whole thing or half misunderstood it.
However.
It is clear that the terms for reselling of our licences are getting worse for us.

But then again, it could be worse ,they could have begun to suck our blood, like istock did, and others, some without telling us, some pissing on us while they did it. Worst were the middlemens middlemen, that distributed our pictures the strangest of places.

Shutter at least tries to include their contributers, and they do not humiliate us.
And maybe who knows, it is they who know the market, and they might be right, and we might earn more.

For April I can I can see my that download numbers going down but the amount of money is going up, which has been a longtime trend, and maybe shutters expansioning the customer base is is not so much on selling subscriptions but selling really large amounts of images to big businesses on other terms.
I dont know, but I like it when my income goes up on a lesser effort, and it does.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 15:15 by JPSDK »

« Reply #58 on: April 06, 2015, 15:13 »
+3
BTW..
Semmick
Sad to hear you have been kicked out as well.
We had fun there in the good old days.
And yes, strangely enough, there is more peace and quiet here.
Despite alle the anonymous people.

ShadySue

« Reply #59 on: April 06, 2015, 15:29 »
+1
And yes, strangely enough, there is more peace and quiet here.
Despite all the anonymous people.
I suspect we've all been ground down too far by the 'illegitimae'.

« Reply #60 on: April 06, 2015, 15:38 »
0
ha ha ha

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2015, 16:09 »
-4
Peace and quiet over here!

Yeah right!

Pfffffffttttttttttttttttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



« Reply #62 on: April 06, 2015, 20:37 »
+3


Can't say I care much for this change. I don't see how it makes them money. You're trading ELs for a few new sub accounts maybe. It doesn't make sense. I mean they make $100 or whatever, and we get $28. Now we get .38 and they sell a sub for less than that when you figure in the change that lets people download their whole package in a day if they want. They're just cutting prices to compete, with little idea of whether it will make them more money.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
6679 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
44204 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
4514 Views
Last post December 27, 2016, 01:13
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results