Quote from: gbalex on March 23, 2014, 14:29

Lisa you have always been a voice of reason, however I think you are missing my intended point entirely. I think it takes some serious b@11s to think that shutterstock contributors should shoulder the cost of content production without price of living adjustments. It also takes some serious b@11s for a profitable company to keep pricing stagnant for 9 years without raising prices so that shutterstock could gain market share.

If shutterstock wants to keep pricing low to gain market share, they should be the ones making the financial sacrifices, not us! And they could easily do that by making a few changes; as many companies who have far more revenue than shutterstock have done.

I do not begrudge the company nice office space, I do take issue with the choices they have made to take market share and profit at the expense of our assets.  The point that seems to have gone over a few heads is that it would be a win win for everyone if shutterstock chose to reduce unnecessary expenses and moving to a more cost effective business location would be "one" way to do that.

I totally agree with everything you said above, and not for the first time . My only point of disagreement is concerning the city in which they are headquartered.   I just don't think it's relevant.  If anything, the idea they should move to a cheaper locale reminds me of all the companies that have been "offshoring" and the devastating effects that can have on the economies of developed areas.  I think it's wrong of companies to take advantage of the infrastructures, advancements, and talent pool of an area, and then when they are successful, to take the wealth generated and go somewhere they can escape paying taxes and a decent wage. 

So basically, I equate using contributors and then screwing them over with using a group of employees and a community and then screwing it over as two sides of the same greedy coin.  I see Jon's loyalty to his hometown as a sign of ethical behavior.

My only other area of disagreement is the notion that any money saved by a relocation will EVER end up in contributor's pockets.  SS is already more than profitable enough to give us a raise if they were so inclined, but I don't see that as likely when they are busy lining shareholder's pockets.

Sure, quality has been raised many times over. Both the quality of the cameras and the of the shooters' imaginations and creativity. But also, ease of use of the technology has also improved. In all seriousness, my photo shoots take mere minutes including post. And I still make a decent return. Micro will always be the place for my images that take minimal effort. Unless you're seeing a decent return for your expense, why would you do it? That's just bad business. Take it someplace where the return is proportional to the expense. There are places for it.

We'd all like to make more money from our images, but I highly doubt that a public company will share any extra profit with suppliers, so the point about office space is kinda moot.

*edit - cobalt beat me to it and said it much better.

Yup, and I've left many agencies who try and do things that better them and not me. Plenty have tried to pull fast ones as well. I've stuck with a few who haven't, but so far only one has not lowered my commissions, nor have they lied, cheated or mislead me about what they're doing. BTW, it's the big boy on the Trad and RM side that seems to be winning the race to the bottom, not the micros.

When Yuri realised his productions costs where not suitable for the subs market he made a deal with Getty and moved his content to a market suitable for the value. He could have also decided to scale down his production, work with a smaller team and keep things going steady on the micros. But he had other plans and it seems to work out for him.

Quote from: Ron on March 23, 2014, 17:44

My word, this is not about not wanting a raise, this is about a Manhattan office. You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.

You are complaining your work isnt valued, but you value your own work when putting it on a sub site. You started out by getting 20 cents, and now you get 25 cents to 120 dollar.

If your work is that good, and high valued, how about applying to OFFSet?

I honestly dont see why you keep bringing it up,  YOU devalue your own work.

Give it a rest. Here is Yuris favorite photo in his gallery in 2005.  I think the bar has been raised a bit since then and you are talking apples to caviar.  The discussion is not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison in the quality of 2005 image standards to those sold today.

What's your favorite picture in your gallery?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793

Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402

And here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's new image quality bar.

Snip

This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.

As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.

Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821

This thread says more about its contributors than shutterstock 

he doesn't want any raise, pretty much he wants his earnings back where they started shrinking in March 2013, him and another 6 top notch contributors

aaah and relocate all SS staff into a bungalow on the middle of nowhere, Jon can have one for his own, other all together

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 24, 2014, 12:17

he doesn't want any raise, pretty much he wants his earnings back where they started shrinking in March 2013, him and another 6 top notch contributors

aaah and relocate all SS staff into a bungalow on the middle of nowhere, Jon can have one for his own, other all together

The slow cook has addled your brain and now you are talking nonsense.

Your frog analogy is both ridiculous, inaccurate and insulting to the rest of us who actually do put time and effort into choosing companies that do not intentionally screw us over. If you really want to rant at someone, rant at Getty, the gold standard for RM and trad shooting. They have won the "race to the bottom" by offering images for free.

Quote from: Ron on March 24, 2014, 02:23

Quote from: gbalex on March 23, 2014, 19:03

Quote from: Ron on March 23, 2014, 17:44

My word, this is not about not wanting a raise, this is about a Manhattan office. You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.

You are complaining your work isnt valued, but you value your own work when putting it on a sub site. You started out by getting 20 cents, and now you get 25 cents to 120 dollar.

If your work is that good, and high valued, how about applying to OFFSet?

I honestly dont see why you keep bringing it up,  YOU devalue your own work.

Give it a rest. Here is Yuris favorite photo in his gallery in 2005.  I think the bar has been raised a bit since then and you are talking apples to caviar.  The discussion is not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison in the quality of 2005 image standards to those sold today.

What's your favorite picture in your gallery?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793

Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402

And here are Yuris 2005 thoughts on SS's new image quality bar.

Snip

This sites image standards has to balance with payout prices for quality pictures.

As it is now, criteria for getting images approved have accelerated to a much stricter level but the payout is the same as before.

Development in picture quality standards should guide payouts pr picture!

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821

Exactly and thats why you get up to 120 dollar these days.

You cant blame a sub site for being/staying a sub site. Its the business model they had from the start.

Jasmin asked a fair question, if they give you another level at 42 cents, or raised 38 to 42, would you be happy then? What kind of royalties would you like to see?

No however you CAN blame them for undercutting pricing to gain market share. You CAN blame them for self admittedly raising the content quality bar "dramatically" while keeping sub pricing stagnate for 9 years.   

I have posted this many times on the site. You have had many opportunities to read it and yet you ignore the in your face facts. It is absolutely clear to SSTK analyst that shutterstock has influenced the entire market by undercutting industry pricing for 10 years. Yet many contributors choose to ignore this fact and give shutterstock an industry pass.

Jon and Key shutterstock stake holders openly admit that they know they can and should raise prices. But have intentionally been keeping sub pricing very low and intend to keep it very low to gain market share.

You would have to be as blind as a bat, in severe denial or at the very least intentionally over looking these facts to not see or acknowledge this; while the founder of the company openly admits them to the world.

Every year our expenses go up and every year as shutterstock grows; their growth strategy exerts greater pressure on other stock agencies to also under cut competitors when pricing buyer subscription packages to compete with shutterstock.

Until the majority of frogs wake up and are willing to jump out of the broth it is a moot point to talk about pricing.  I have stated here on MSG that shutterstock no long gets my best images because they have not earned them. See below.  It is clear that they intend on ringing every cent they can garner from our hides.  The strategy is a kin to running a horse with no water or hay until he drops, lacking what he needs to move on.

Snip (Maybe In Your Face Highlighted Red will get through but I highly doubt it)

Duck Swartz

So what�s changed in the marketplace that�s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

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

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

Snip

Duck Swartz

Talking about your present strategy longer term?

Timothy E. Bixby - CFO

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

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

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

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