Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer) (Read 37472 times)

Ron · « **Reply #150 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:08 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 24, 2014, 12:56

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 12:04
You still haven´t answered my question. How much of a raise do you want for your images? From 38 to 40 cents? 42?

At which subs royalty level are you able to produce successfully again?

You keep demanding a raise, please let us know how much.

I think a royalty model similar to Stocksy would be fair.

Shutterstock has been successful because they have kept it simple, however a segment of their HCV content should have been split off and offered at a premium 5 years ago. Aprox 10% below Stocksy pricing.

As it stands they have recently introduced Offest offering content which sometimes does not meet image quality and content standards found existing in the shutterstock library. Contributors producing content that meets or exceeds Offset quality should have received commiserate compensation years ago. Offset now has to compete with that low balled HCV sub content.

It is a moot point as long as shutterstock continues to low ball pricing as a long term strategy to gain market share!

What is stopping you from pulling out of Shutterstock and submit to Stocksy and OFFset? Its all in your own hands. But you choose to bitch and moan instead of taking control.

Ron · « **Reply #151 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:09 »

Of course! Bitching and moaning is easier.

gbalex · « **Reply #152 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:09 »

Quote from: cthoman on March 24, 2014, 13:02

Quote from: farbled on March 24, 2014, 12:43
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.

Does it have to be intentional to be bad?

This is where we disagree. At our expense; shutterstock has intentionally developed a business strategy devised to gain market share which does screw us over. They kept prices stagnant for 9 years while drastically raising the image content and quality bar.

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.

farbled · « **Reply #153 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:12 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 24, 2014, 13:03

Quote from: cthoman on March 24, 2014, 13:02
Quote from: farbled on March 24, 2014, 12:43
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.

Does it have to be intentional to be bad?
Saw that too.
"Oops we accidentally took away the referral program."

Got me there. I forgot about the referral program. Yup, you are quite right. Tell me though, who brought it to light when it was decided? Not condoning it at all, but they were upfront about it. By comparison, who brought the Google/iSuck deal to light?

farbled · « **Reply #154 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:18 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 24, 2014, 13:09

This is where we disagree. At our expense; shutterstock has intentionally developed a business strategy devised to gain market share which does screw us over. They kept prices stagnant for 9 years while drastically raising the image content and quality bar.

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.

Hmm, I am starting to think you don't understand the difference between what a customer is charged and what a contributor is paid (price vs. commission). I'm not saying SS is right in keeping commissions static (except for SOD's, EL's, OD's and increasing commission levels, but we won't let that trivia get in the way), but that in light of so many other agencies screwing over or simply decreasing the commissions made on subs, they are doing things more right than wrong. And where their office is located is irrelevant.

If you really are not making money because your cost is higher than your return, its on you, not the company you choose to do business with.

Ron · « **Reply #155 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:21 »

Maybe if you put it in red font size 20 he gets it

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #156 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:24 »

Gbalex - you're just recycling the tired old trad-shooters anti-micro complaints from a decade ago.

Your basic demand has finally come out - destroy Shutterstock by putting everything up to "midstock" prices to honour your wonderful files. You're just making a complete fool of yourself.

Mind you, I should have guessed your complaint was nutty when I saw the red letters and vast typesize. It's always a giveaway.

You obviously didn't notice along the way that the ones constantly raising the bar were us, the contributors, as we ceaselessly tried to outdo each other to grab a bigger slice of the sales. The agencies just let us get on with it and alterer their inspection standards accordingly.

(PS: The trad shooters had a fair point about micros hitting their market, but the idea that they could make it go away because they didn't like it was utterly unrealistic - you either climbed aboard the bandwaggon or let it pass you by, you weren't going to stop it).

cthoman · « **Reply #157 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:24 »

Quote from: farbled on March 24, 2014, 13:18

Hmm, I am starting to think you don't understand the difference between what a customer is charged and what a contributor is paid (price vs. commission). I'm not saying SS is right in keeping commissions static (except for SOD's, EL's, OD's and increasing commission levels, but we won't let that trivia get in the way), but that in light of so many other agencies screwing over or simply decreasing the commissions made on subs, they are doing things more right than wrong. And where their office is located is irrelevant.

If you really are not making money because your cost is higher than your return, its on you, not the company you choose to do business with.

I guess it's a question of why you think those other agencies are doing what they do. Some of it is probably greed, but other parts of it are competition.

cobalt · « **Reply #158 on:** March 24, 2014, 13:30 »

The content on Offset and stocksy or Getty House is not high volume generic content.

Many of those files sell maybe once or twice a year, some of them might not find a buyer for several years. Very few files become regular bestsellers, but "regular" means it gets sold every quarter or every 6 weeks and not daily.

It is a different business model and involves a lot of personal interaction with the customer. They are not simple webshops.

They are also highly edited collections, the contributor does not simply have a "webshop" portfolio they can build in peace for themselves exploring any kind of subject matter they want.

Instead the editors give out very specific style guidelines and the contributors submit content in the hope it gets chosen. Like on getty the rejection rate can be very high. The macros sometimes just take 1 file from 10 you submit.

With practise you get more experience and your rejection rate goes down, but you have to accept that your content is part of an overall collection and only the editors see it all. Which is the way it has to be, the customers are paying the higher prices because they don´t want to wade through millions of files.

stocksy is so successful not just because they have great artist, but because they have extremely talented editors who are familiar with the most current trends. They know how to take content that is being submitted from around the globe and very carefully select the best work that will create a unique style when you look at it all together.

It is a very difficult thing to do and stocksy does it extremely well.

The contributors who work for macros need to be very flexible to shoot new trends and also enjoy being inspired by style guides. It is a very different way of working than just submitting whatever you personally like for the micros.

Like I said before...different business model and different way of working entirely.

But you are an independent artist, so you can freely submit content to micros and macros.

But to expect a micro site like SS to transform into a macro site, it does´t make any sense. That is why SS created Offset.

So if you are tired of shooting generic content and want to produce more high value stuff, then just go and submit to the macros and stocksy. Go and apply to Getty. Or Corbis, Masterfile....but Getty is still the biggest macro house, so I would try them if you don´t have the experience.. stocksy and Offset are very young and still growing. In the macro world Getty is still King. For how long? No idea...

And maybe after doing that for a year, why don´t you let us know if it is working for you? Maybe then sending generic content to a subs site where you just need to meet technical requirements but are free to shoot any style you like will be interesting again.

Personally I like both. I see the macros with their high value content as a great challenge to become a better artist and as inspiration.

But I also appreciate the freedom of building my own little webshops on the different micro sites. And moneywise, the constant income from microstock brings a lot of stability. Much better than selling images just a few times a year. But both macro and micro content are fun to shoot. Both bring in money.

Only you know where you will make more money. I have shown several traditional artist my income from my simple, generic portfolio on istock and they nearly cried. I made more money in 6 years than they made in 10 years as a Getty house contributor. Obviously Getty will also have some macro superstars, but apparently I was making more than the people I spoke with.

But it is just like selling software, some people create specialised software and price it at 2000 dollars. Others invest millions into a project that is sold for 99 cents for smartphones and make hundreds of millions in profit.

You have to make the same decisions with your content - what will earn you more money - high volume or high value with low volume??

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #159 on:** March 24, 2014, 14:07 »

It's very simple, really. If you are a world-class photographer with unique vision and fabulous subject matter then you would be an idiot to sell it as microstock. If you are a proficient technician who can produce excellent quality images like everybody else's then the value of your work reflects its ordinariness. You can't change the value with wishful thinking or because the quality is up there alongside the best of all the other similar sort of images.

cthoman · « **Reply #160 on:** March 24, 2014, 14:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2014, 14:07

It's very simple, really. If you are a world-class photographer with unique vision and fabulous subject matter then you would be an idiot to sell it as microstock. If you are a proficient technician who can produce excellent quality images like everybody else's then the value of your work reflects its ordinariness. You can't change the value with wishful thinking or because the quality is up there alongside the best of all the other similar sort of images.

Except for all that middle ground of not wanting to change the value of it, but moving the slider so you get closer to max value instead of the minimum.

gbalex · « **Reply #161 on:** March 24, 2014, 14:33 »

Quote from: farbled on March 24, 2014, 13:18

Quote from: gbalex on March 24, 2014, 13:09

This is where we disagree. At our expense; shutterstock has intentionally developed a business strategy devised to gain market share which does screw us over. They kept prices stagnant for 9 years while drastically raising the image content and quality bar.

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.

Hmm, I am starting to think you don't understand the difference between what a customer is charged and what a contributor is paid (price vs. commission). I'm not saying SS is right in keeping commissions static (except for SOD's, EL's, OD's and increasing commission levels, but we won't let that trivia get in the way), but that in light of so many other agencies screwing over or simply decreasing the commissions made on subs, they are doing things more right than wrong. And where their office is located is irrelevant.

If you really are not making money because your cost is higher than your return, its on you, not the company you choose to do business with.

Shutterstock has increased it's acceptance standards drastically while keeping its pricing static for 9 years. By doing this they have in effect lowered our royalties.

When shutterstock charges as low as .16 cent per image for content of far higher quality today that does ultimate affect their profit margin and as we know they are only willing to pay us 28% royalty on subscription images.

Image standards in 2005

Quality of 2014 subscription content sold to buyers @ 2005 subscription pricing.
http://tinyurl.com/mht9cr8

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #162 on:** March 24, 2014, 14:41 »

Quote from: cthoman on March 24, 2014, 14:20

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2014, 14:07
It's very simple, really. If you are a world-class photographer with unique vision and fabulous subject matter then you would be an idiot to sell it as microstock. If you are a proficient technician who can produce excellent quality images like everybody else's then the value of your work reflects its ordinariness. You can't change the value with wishful thinking or because the quality is up there alongside the best of all the other similar sort of images.

Except for all that middle ground of not wanting to change the value of it, but moving the slider so you get closer to max value instead of the minimum.

Yes, that's fair enough. There are ranges of values that things sell for, but so far if you are in microstock you have to work within the parameters of the established agencies. iStock prices stuff all over the place, presumably on the basis that some people will only pay the lowest rates and others are not especially price sensitive within a certain range. They also want cheap material as a lure. As a result they have cut my prices to well below what they should be - the price cuts cost me about 40% of my income there. For subs, I think iSTock matches SS prices doesn't it? Maybe with minor variations.

I guess the agencies try to keep the prices as high as they can without losing customers, in order to maximise their own profits.

****

By increasing acceptance standards SS has actually increased our royalties, since it tends to prevent newbies entering the market and taking our sales.
PS: A lot of the "2014 quality" images in that search are actually images that were uploaded in or before 2005.

farbled · « **Reply #163 on:** March 24, 2014, 15:03 »

He/they/it seems very determined about this whole "paying us less" thing even when its been proven to be patently false. Charging customers less? Sure, in some cases. I would like to think that they know what they're doing as a business (unlike another company that changes things that I can only assume are according to the readings from chicken entrails).

I think I've gone as far as I can in this thread. No one's minds will be changed.

gbalex · « **Reply #164 on:** March 24, 2014, 15:23 »

Two separate issues.

1. Royalty structure. Bruce has stated publicly that he feels microsites should be paying no less than 50% royalties. He feels that would be profitable for the company and contributors. More than anyone in the business he is qualified and has had access to a vast amounts of financial and sales information which led him to come to that conclusion.

2. Shutterstock failed to split off content that should have been added to curated collections and priced at a premium. That has hurt the macro market.

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 13:30

stocksy is so successful not just because they have great artist, but because they have extremely talented editors who are familiar with the most current trends. They know how to take content that is being submitted from around the globe and very carefully select the best work that will create a unique style when you look at it all together.

By not curating the content from HCV contributors, shutterstock has made it much harder for companies like stocksy to charge fair prices because images of similar quality are available for very low prices and have sold in very high numbers. You can see those images in popular searches because in the end the buyers have served as on trend editors.

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 13:30

I have shown several traditional artist my income from my simple, generic portfolio on istock and they nearly cried. I made more money in 6 years than they made in 10 years as a Getty house contributor. Obviously Getty will also have some macro superstars, but apparently I was making more than the people I spoke with.

And that changed on IS when Bruce departed. Shutterstocks long term price undercutting and failure to split and curate HCV content into an something similar to its new offset, has been costly to the industry as a whole.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #165 on:** March 24, 2014, 15:26 »

so what are your plans? continue to moan about it or leave it once for all?

Ron · « **Reply #166 on:** March 24, 2014, 15:41 »

What? Wait a minute. Shutterstock's long term undercutting has undermined the market as whole. You started out submitting images in 2004 to that business that supposedly was undercutting prices. No one forced you. Shutterstock disrupted the market, no doubt about it, but you gave them your images anyways. And now because you got hurt by a change in March 2013, all of a sudden Shutterstock is the problem.

Right. I think Baldrick hit the nail on the head. Your true agenda got revealed today. I am done here as well.

cobalt · « **Reply #167 on:** March 24, 2014, 15:50 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 24, 2014, 15:23

2. Shutterstock failed to split off content that should have been added to curated collections and priced at a premium. That has hurt the macro market.

I am confused. Haven´t you been a micro submitter for 10 years or something? Where has your sudden interest in the macro market come from? Do you even have files on the macro market??

Haven´t you complained that a change in best match abruptly cut your subs income by 50%? Last March?

So what does macro have to do with it?? Or the rent SS pays...but I guess we no longer need to discuss that, do we...

On the micros the customer has to spend hours sifting through millions of files to find macro content. The reason customers pay macro prices is for the service of an edited collection.

There is no reason for SS to edit the content, they don´t offer personalised macro services. Just like ebay doesn´t sift through the products being offered. They are not Sotheby´s or Christie´s.

It is a different business model.

"By not curating the content from HCV contributors, shutterstock has made it much harder for companies like stocksy to charge fair prices because images of similar quality are available for very low prices and have sold in very high numbers. You can see those images in popular searches because in the end the buyers have served as on trend editors."

When I look at the popular searches on SS I never see macro content on top. I see green grass, wood backgrounds and super smiling über happy people yuri arcurs style. Maybe SS has macro content somewhere, but they are hiding it very well.

SS - subs agency...generic content for the mass market...very little macro content and sorting by popular downloads will give you...high volume files...the most generic content available because it was chosen by thousands of customers.

The customers are not trend editors. Editing is a very complex job that only few highly skilled people do really well. The "masses" cannot replace them.

Editors set the trends that others follow, not the other way around.

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 13:30

And that changed on IS when Bruce departed. Shutterstocks long term price undercutting and failure to split and curate HCV content into an something similar to its new offset, has been costly to the industry as a whole.

Shutterstock didn´t destroy istock. They did that completely to themselves. It was the management that came after Bruce that ruined the company. Precisely because SS didn´t change much, you can see how bad the Getty management handled the takeover. Nothing substantial changed between 2009 and 2012. The internet is still there, masses of files are still being uploaded, SS diidm´t even change much in their prices...so why did istock nosedive? Because of there own bad decisions,

Accumulation of 2 billion dollars in debts and lack of investment in their business to please their owners with spectacular bonuses. Flip Flopping half baked strategies every 6 months. Never thinking it through. Never planning longterm. Just experimenting with the business in the hope something will stick. Treating it more like a game than a real business.

SS is not responsible for that.

Is not splitting the content on SS in your opinion the reason istock lost their market leadership position?? You don´t really believe that, do you??

This kind of "let´s blame SS for everything" instead of using your brain and admitting that istock destroyed their own market leadership really reminds me of a lot of nonsense I kept hearing on istock. Always looking for someone "outside" they could blame. Always elsewhere, not owning up to your own mistakes and refusing to take responsibility.

What do you care about istock and Getty anyway? Or the macro market? Do you even have high quality content suitable for edited collections?

I mean you complained that SS was rejecting more of your content and you had trouble keeping up with their quality demands. If you think SS is demanding, how on earth will you get files into Getty or Offset?

You complain in many threads you want a raise for your 38 cent downloads. Suddenly you say you want SS to price their files for 500 dollars and pay you 50% of that?

I think the easiest solution for you is to remove all files from SS and just submit to the macros.

Good luck.

ETA: Ron was faster. Looks like we have a Getty fan here pretending to be a micro artist. With an invisible portfolio.

cthoman · « **Reply #168 on:** March 24, 2014, 16:43 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2014, 14:41

Yes, that's fair enough. There are ranges of values that things sell for, but so far if you are in microstock you have to work within the parameters of the established agencies.

I guess that is the frustrating part for me. Last year, 15% of my sales resulted in about 60% of my earnings. Those sales averaged around a $10 RPD. The other 85% of my sales averaged around a $1 RPD. It's pretty clear where I need to move my sales to, but actually doing it is the real challenge.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #169 on:** March 24, 2014, 17:41 »

Quote from: cthoman on March 24, 2014, 16:43

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 24, 2014, 14:41
Yes, that's fair enough. There are ranges of values that things sell for, but so far if you are in microstock you have to work within the parameters of the established agencies.

I guess that is the frustrating part for me. Last year, 15% of my sales resulted in about 60% of my earnings. Those sales averaged around a $10 RPD. The other 85% of my sales averaged around a $1 RPD. It's pretty clear where I need to move my sales to, but actually doing it is the real challenge.

Yes, most of us have too much time and effort invested and are too reliant on what we are getting to be ready to jump ship. It makes sense to build completely different income streams, from photos or anything else that you find works for you.

The old "80% of earnings from 20% of goods" rule has always more or less fitted microstock.

gbalex · « **Reply #170 on:** March 24, 2014, 17:54 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 15:50

Quote from: gbalex on March 24, 2014, 15:23

2. Shutterstock failed to split off content that should have been added to curated collections and priced at a premium. That has hurt the macro market.

I am confused. Haven´t you been a micro submitter for 10 years or something? Where has your sudden interest in the macro market come from? Do you even have files on the macro market??

Haven´t you complained that a change in best match abruptly cut your subs income by 50%? Last March?

So what does macro have to do with it?? Or the rent SS pays...but I guess we no longer need to discuss that, do we...

On the micros the customer has to spend hours sifting through millions of files to find macro content. The reason customers pay macro prices is for the service of an edited collection.

There is no reason for SS to edit the content, they don´t offer personalised macro services. Just like ebay doesn´t sift through the products being offered. They are not Sotheby´s or Christie´s.

It is a different business model.

"By not curating the content from HCV contributors, shutterstock has made it much harder for companies like stocksy to charge fair prices because images of similar quality are available for very low prices and have sold in very high numbers. You can see those images in popular searches because in the end the buyers have served as on trend editors."

When I look at the popular searches on SS I never see macro content on top. I see green grass, wood backgrounds and super smiling über happy people yuri arcurs style. Maybe SS has macro content somewhere, but they are hiding it very well.

SS - subs agency...generic content for the mass market...very little macro content and sorting by popular downloads will give you...high volume files...the most generic content available because it was chosen by thousands of customers.

The customers are not trend editors. Editing is a very complex job that only few highly skilled people do really well. The "masses" cannot replace them.

Editors set the trends that others follow, not the other way around.

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 13:30
And that changed on IS when Bruce departed. Shutterstocks long term price undercutting and failure to split and curate HCV content into an something similar to its new offset, has been costly to the industry as a whole.

Shutterstock didn´t destroy istock. They did that completely to themselves. It was the management that came after Bruce that ruined the company. Precisely because SS didn´t change much, you can see how bad the Getty management handled the takeover. Nothing substantial changed between 2009 and 2012. The internet is still there, masses of files are still being uploaded, SS diidm´t even change much in their prices...so why did istock nosedive? Because of there own bad decisions,

Accumulation of 2 billion dollars in debts and lack of investment in their business to please their owners with spectacular bonuses. Flip Flopping half baked strategies every 6 months. Never thinking it through. Never planning longterm. Just experimenting with the business in the hope something will stick. Treating it more like a game than a real business.

SS is not responsible for that.

Is not splitting the content on SS in your opinion the reason istock lost their market leadership position?? You don´t really believe that, do you??

This kind of "let´s blame SS for everything" instead of using your brain and admitting that istock destroyed their own market leadership really reminds me of a lot of nonsense I kept hearing on istock. Always looking for someone "outside" they could blame. Always elsewhere, not owning up to your own mistakes and refusing to take responsibility.

What do you care about istock and Getty anyway? Or the macro market? Do you even have high quality content suitable for edited collections?

I mean you complained that SS was rejecting more of your content and you had trouble keeping up with their quality demands. If you think SS is demanding, how on earth will you get files into Getty or Offset?

You complain in many threads you want a raise for your 38 cent downloads. Suddenly you say you want SS to price their files for 500 dollars and pay you 50% of that?

I think the easiest solution for you is to remove all files from SS and just submit to the macros.

Good luck.

ETA: Ron was faster. Looks like we have a Getty fan here pretending to be a micro artist. With an invisible portfolio.

My mistake is responding to so many off track comments thrown out to far left field. It is clear that many people here are invested in continuing to believe that shutterstock will be profitable for them long term. Feel free to paint the picture you want to see and ignore facts.

My comment about IS downward spiral after Bruce's departure alluded to the many negative changes that took place at IS and allowed shutterstock to capture part of those sales by using price undercutting and simply not making some of the unwise business choices IS made.

Where do you find that I have been complaining about rejections? My acceptance rate has always been high. I did post one of Yuris photo's as an example of sub images quality at .20 in 2005 vs image quality 9 years later @ .25

The image quality bar comment was not made by me. It was made by Yuri in response to SS raising the bar, while keeping royalty rates static.

I have been contributing to macro sites for 7 years and considering the attitude from a few here I choose to keep the details private. You can find those avenues on your own, just as I did.

I understand a few of you feel you are entitled to decide what type of images I should contribute and where, however my business is just that my own.

I did not say that SS should charge 500 prices I did say that they should have moved some types of content into a collections like Offset early in the game. Now they have Offset where they charge higher prices and files on SS which in some cases are of similar quality.

I am done now and will put a fork in it. My mistake for entertaining folks who fail to read what I posted and or feel free to jump to conclusions, twist or put words in my mouth.

farbled · « **Reply #171 on:** March 24, 2014, 18:57 »

Are there any other opinions on topic about Jon's rise to be a world leader in stock image licensing?

Mantis · « **Reply #172 on:** March 24, 2014, 19:05 »

Quote from: farbled on March 24, 2014, 18:57

Are there any other opinions on topic about Jon's rise to be a world leader in stock image licensing?

Yes. Does his money buy him a hot blond?

farbled · « **Reply #173 on:** March 24, 2014, 19:21 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 24, 2014, 19:05

Quote from: farbled on March 24, 2014, 18:57
Are there any other opinions on topic about Jon's rise to be a world leader in stock image licensing?

Yes. Does his money buy him a hot blond?

Dunno, got him a helicopter though.

gbalex · « **Reply #174 on:** March 24, 2014, 20:14 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 24, 2014, 15:50

ETA: Ron was faster. Looks like we have a Getty fan here pretending to be a micro artist. With an invisible portfolio.

I will give you one pass on your insulting comments since between the two of you. You have nano seconds of experience @ shutterstock.

With all due respect I think contributors will need more than good luck if we choose to pin our hopes on a company that pulled in -56.98 earnings growth last year; due in good part due to the business choice they made to relocate their offices with a 13 million plus 2013 spend.

Malign & misrepresent my viewpoints if you wish, however at least I have the courage to think, explore and question a company that has raised the content bar substantially over the last 10 years. Yet as have strategically made the business choice to decline raising its sub prices for buyers over the last 9 years. In fact shutterstock under cut their own low ball pricing and introduced even lower sub rates @ BS thereby killing a good portion OD downloads we had been receiving at BS.

We all have the prerogative to question SS's business choices in lieu of contributing apple polish SSTK Woooooo Yea's. If you think Woooooo Yea's will bring you favorable returns; by all means carry on celebrating the above SS business choices as the bottom grows ever closer.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer) (Read 37472 times)

Ron

Ron

gbalex

farbled

farbled

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

cthoman

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

cthoman

gbalex

BaldricksTrousers

farbled

gbalex

luissantos84

Ron

cobalt

cthoman

BaldricksTrousers

gbalex

farbled

Mantis

farbled

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors