Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer) (Read 37454 times)

Ron · « **Reply #26 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:15 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 14:02

Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 12:39
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.

What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.

Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.

Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term?

I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices and we can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere.

I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space with less money than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602

Are you suggesting that Shutterstock should fire 300 employees and hire 300 new staff elsewhere? I figured from your comments on your dads fortune 500 company you were more social than that. Now I think laying off 300 staff to reduce cost so you can earn more seems okay in your book.

cthoman · « **Reply #27 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 20, 2014, 14:06

I think we've already seen this phenomenon happening when many people see overall incomes dropping and Shutterstock's market share and the earnings from them grow. In other words as Shutterstock makes more money for contributors, contributors overall income falls.

This is probably true for somebody like me, but I think most contributors sell so much more on SS that they are essentially exclusive there.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see where they go next. They've done a good job diversifying to keep growth going with On Demand, Use Sales, Offset, cutting affiliates, etc. But sooner or later those will get tapped out, and they'll have to grow somewhere else by cutting royalties, increasing prices or buying competitors. I really wonder which route they'll go.

gbalex · « **Reply #28 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:29 »

Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 14:15

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 14:02
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 12:39
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.

What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.

Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.

Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term?

I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices and we can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere.

I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space with less money than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602

Are you suggesting that Shutterstock should fire 300 employees and hire 300 new staff elsewhere? I figured from your comments on your dads fortune 500 company you were more social than that. Now I think laying off 300 staff to reduce cost so you can earn more seems okay in your book.

It is a fortune 200 company and they have moved employees, when making strategic changes. They did not fire employees but paid all relocation expenses for those who understood that there was more opportunity at the new location for company and employee growth. The employees that did not want to move, stayed at the old office location which became a smaller regional office.

tickstock · « **Reply #29 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:35 »

Ron · « **Reply #30 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:40 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 14:29

Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 14:15
Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 14:02
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 12:39
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.

What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.

Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.

Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term?

I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices and we can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere.

I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space with less money than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602

Are you suggesting that Shutterstock should fire 300 employees and hire 300 new staff elsewhere? I figured from your comments on your dads fortune 500 company you were more social than that. Now I think laying off 300 staff to reduce cost so you can earn more seems okay in your book.

It is a fortune 200 company and they have moved employees, when making strategic changes. They did not fire employees but paid all relocation expenses for those who understood that there was more opportunity at the new location for company and employee growth. The employees that did not want to move, stayed at the old office location which became a smaller regional office.

Thats not what I asked.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #31 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 20, 2014, 14:06

Quote from: cthoman on March 20, 2014, 13:38
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 13:16
LOL. But really, he has a point. I think the 30% being the sweetspot is just meaningless business talk. I am sure if they paid 40% they would still do well. A little bit less profit isnt going to hurt anyone.

I was actually going to make a big long point about that 30% quote yesterday when tickstock posted it. Basically, it's their sweet spot not ours. They use the extra money to out compete the stock agencies which are their competitors not ours. Also, it is hard to say it is a sweet spot when they haven't tried higher royalties. They have tried higher price points and are having success with that (for both us and them). I like that they make me money, but don't pretend to be doing me any favors. It's about them and making money for themselves.
Yep, the point Jon was making was that agencies that pay more than Shutterstock will struggle because Shutterstock can out spend them on marketing, thus you'll make less overall dollars on the better paying site than on Shutterstock. It isn't better for us at all if paying a lower percentage gets more market share and puts the better sites out of business. I've repeatedly heard that the percentage doesn't matter much it's just the overall dollars that matter, this view still seems to lead to a race to the bottom. Sites that pay a higher royalty rate will lose out to sites that can spend more on marketing, making them less appealing to contributors that only look at overall money and the lowering paying sites will increase their market share even more. I think we've already seen this phenomenon happening when many people see overall incomes dropping and Shutterstock's market share and the earnings from them grow. In other words as Shutterstock makes more money for contributors, contributors overall income falls.

I believe Shutterstock is paying about 30%. iStock pays me 20%. Getty pays embedded images 0% of nothing.

tickstock · « **Reply #32 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:45 »

lisafx · « **Reply #33 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:56 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 12:10

Oringer is from New York. Why would he move himself or his company elsewhere?

His largest clients are also probably based in New York. Why would he move away from them?

I'll be working a block from their offices next week. It would be a hoot to pop in and look around.

I agree. I don't see why every successful business should automatically relocate to the cheapest area possible. NYC is expensive, but it offers a quality of life that is very unique and appealing to a lot of people. Maybe those people are happy to work at Shutterstock.

lisafx · « **Reply #34 on:** March 20, 2014, 14:59 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 20, 2014, 14:45

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 14:42
I believe Shutterstock is paying about 30%. iStock pays me 20%. Getty pays embedded images 0% of nothing.
What names do you call people that always bring up another agency to distract from the current topic? Oh yeah you are very quick to call people trolls for doing that. This is a Shutterstock thread maybe you could try to stay on topic?

First off, Shelma doesn't "always" do that. Only this time. Also, his/her observations are perhaps relevant because he/she is actually a contributor to both sites so has a dog currently in the race, so to speak.

tickstock · « **Reply #35 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:01 »

dirkr · « **Reply #36 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 20, 2014, 15:01

Quote from: lisafx on March 20, 2014, 14:59
Quote from: tickstock on March 20, 2014, 14:45
Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 14:42
I believe Shutterstock is paying about 30%. iStock pays me 20%. Getty pays embedded images 0% of nothing.
What names do you call people that always bring up another agency to distract from the current topic? Oh yeah you are very quick to call people trolls for doing that. This is a Shutterstock thread maybe you could try to stay on topic?

First off, Shelma doesn't "always" do that. Only this time. Also, his/her observations are perhaps relevant because he/she is actually a contributor to both sites so has a dog currently in the race, so to speak.
We all have a dog in the race so to speak. Read what I've written, I think what happens at one site does affect people on other sites.

So you agree that one big reason allowing Shutterstock to not raise commission rates are the even lower rates from Istock?

Or the other way round: Why would Shutterstock ever raise rates when so many people are happy selling at IS for 15% - 20%?

tickstock · « **Reply #37 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:20 »

gbalex · « **Reply #38 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:24 »

Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 14:40

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 14:29
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 14:15
Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 14:02
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 12:39
You know Gbalex, you say a lot of stuff that makes sense. And I think you have me convinced that we could and should earn more than what we currently earn at Shutterstock. Your endless posting of the same quotes over and over probably worked.

What I dont get is that you are know moaning over their location. After all is said and done you come across as a bitter and jealous person. You are probably not that, so maybe you want to stop moaning over where they set up office.

Someone else mentioned in another thread when you brought it up that they could possibly move to a cheap office somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but they need to hire close to 300 staff, with certain skills. You dont find that everywhere. Thats why companies set up office in certain places.

Business is business, there is no room for jealousy. Why would I be jealous of a company I believe is making poor business decisions which put it at a competitive disadvantage long term?

I do expect the companies I work with to make sound business decisions and when they do not we ALL have the right to let the world know what we think of those choices and we can also choose to put a larger portion of our images elsewhere.

I posted this link earlier in the thread, from the comments you made I will assume you skipped it. It details plenty of areas in the US that have greater numbers of tech and advertising employees available for hire. And those areas also have lower cost of office space and living expenses. In fact SS could have bought superior office space with less money than they chose to spend on tenant improvements this year alone. Now instead of owning outright they will have to pay 3 million in office rent every year; while their competitors can spend those funds on advertizing etc.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602

Are you suggesting that Shutterstock should fire 300 employees and hire 300 new staff elsewhere? I figured from your comments on your dads fortune 500 company you were more social than that. Now I think laying off 300 staff to reduce cost so you can earn more seems okay in your book.

It is a fortune 200 company and they have moved employees, when making strategic changes. They did not fire employees but paid all relocation expenses for those who understood that there was more opportunity at the new location for company and employee growth. The employees that did not want to move, stayed at the old office location which became a smaller regional office.
Thats not what I asked.

No I do not think they should fire employees. Business is rarely either or. Instead of moving to a new location, hiring more people and spending 10 million plus on tenant improvements & 3 million annual rent. They could have left the existing smaller office in place to serve clients in New York and also use that small location to house a sales team focused on the area.

Going forward it would have been far more cost effective to move strategic parts of the company to a location which provided increased access to great employees as well as lower business and living expenses. Most high level executives travel between the main corporate office and regional offices. Jon already has a helicopter for travel Most large companies have their own fleet of planes for this purpose and spend time between offices. Instead of spending millions needlessly and having trouble procuring and paying the tech people they need to grow. A more strategic and cost effective strategy would have offered a competitive advantage for shutterstock while freeing up resources they could utilize to grow the business, increase royalties and maintain a fairer relationship with contributors.

Ron · « **Reply #39 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:29 »

How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.

gbalex · « **Reply #40 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:44 »

Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 15:29

How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.

I am sure the rest of the smaller micros are happy to see these developments. Maybe we should encourage shutterstock to spend more cash, it will give competitors a chance to do the opposite. If I were a competitor I would be relived they are taking this tact.

Unless shutterstock is only in this for the short term and they intend on driving prices to the ground for everyone. If that is the case, it does not really matter what any micro does long term. Key shutterstock stake holders will know when to grab the money and run by cashing out when they feel they hit the SSTK ceiling.

Red Dove · « **Reply #41 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:52 »

Quote from: mike ledray on March 20, 2014, 13:24

Shutterstock Rocks!
I love it
They are the Greatest site on earth!
Jon has single handedly created an amazing opportunity for Anyone with the wherewithal make and sell photos and get into the stock photo industry easily.
I for one Appreciate All that Jon has done!

Thank You Jon
You Rock!

Crikey Mikey. We actually agree on something - almost. Although being British I'll settle for this....Well played Jon. Nice Work.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 20, 2014, 15:54 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 15:44

Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 15:29
How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.

I am sure the rest of the smaller micros are happy to see these developments. Maybe we should encourage shutterstock to spend more cash, it will give competitors a chance to do the opposite. If I were a competitor I would be relived they are taking this tact.

Unless shutterstock is only in this for the short term and they intend on driving prices to the ground for everyone. If that is the case, it does not really matter what any micro does long term. Key shutterstock stake holders will know when to grab the money and run by cashing out when they feel they hit the SSTK ceiling.

Taking what tack? They've always been based in NY, I think. They moved from one building to another. They made the new place work for their needs.

cthoman · « **Reply #43 on:** March 20, 2014, 17:14 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 15:54

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 15:44
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 15:29
How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.

I am sure the rest of the smaller micros are happy to see these developments. Maybe we should encourage shutterstock to spend more cash, it will give competitors a chance to do the opposite. If I were a competitor I would be relived they are taking this tact.

Unless shutterstock is only in this for the short term and they intend on driving prices to the ground for everyone. If that is the case, it does not really matter what any micro does long term. Key shutterstock stake holders will know when to grab the money and run by cashing out when they feel they hit the SSTK ceiling.

Taking what tack? They've always been based in NY, I think. They moved from one building to another. They made the new place work for their needs.

I think he meant the tactic of unnecessarily spending money that could be invested back into the business if they relocated for the future. They probably have to pay their programmers and other employees twice as much as they would if they moved to a different location. Not to mention no state income tax in places like Florida and Texas. I definitely don't know all the ends and outs, but I can see his point.

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 20, 2014, 17:48 »

I really don't get all the grousing about the headquarters location. It makes perfect sense to me:

1) Big advertising agencies, media corporations and other enterprise level purchasers of stock images are often located in New York. It's always good to be close to your clients.

2) New York is the financial center of the country and now SS is publicly traded. Being close to Wall Street is an advantage to a public corporation.

It may be more expensive to be located there but judging by the fact they've floated a successful IPO, these are smart business people. To me it makes sense to think they did a cost to benefit comparison on their decision and made the move that makes the most sense to them. Maybe they could pay out more to contributors if they were in Texas but then maybe they'd be less able to compete for big clients and have to cut payments. I'm certainly not going to second guess them on it.

gbalex · « **Reply #45 on:** March 20, 2014, 17:49 »

Quote from: cthoman on March 20, 2014, 17:14

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 15:54
Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 15:44
Quote from: Ron on March 20, 2014, 15:29
How do you know anything about the reason why it all happened as it happened? You make it sound like it is all that simple. It isnt. How do you know it wasnt a strategic decision to do what they did? You have no knowledge of what happens on the inside whatsoever. So you cant say they would have been better off doing this or that.

I am sure the rest of the smaller micros are happy to see these developments. Maybe we should encourage shutterstock to spend more cash, it will give competitors a chance to do the opposite. If I were a competitor I would be relived they are taking this tact.

Unless shutterstock is only in this for the short term and they intend on driving prices to the ground for everyone. If that is the case, it does not really matter what any micro does long term. Key shutterstock stake holders will know when to grab the money and run by cashing out when they feel they hit the SSTK ceiling.

Taking what tack? They've always been based in NY, I think. They moved from one building to another. They made the new place work for their needs.

I think he meant the tactic of unnecessarily spending money that could be invested back into the business if they relocated for the future. They probably have to pay their programmers and other employees twice as much as they would if they moved to a different location. Not to mention no state income tax in places like Florida and Texas. I definitely don't know all the ends and outs, but I can see his point.

Well said, this article hits some of the high points you mentioned.

The Surprising Cities Creating The Most Tech Jobs

Snip

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2013/11/20/the-surprising-cities-creating-the-most-tech-jobs/

To determine the metro areas that are generating the most tech jobs, Praxis Strategy Group examined employment data in two different categories. Half our ranking is based on changes in employment at companies in high-technology industries, such as software and engineering. Half is based on changes in the number of workers classified as being in STEM occupations, which captures tech workers who are employed in industries not primarily associated with technology, such as finance or business services.

We ranked the 52 largest U.S. metropolitan statistical areas by the growth in tech employment from 2001 to 2013, as well as for their more near-term growth from 2010 to 2013 to give credit for current momentum.

We analyze job creation trends in the nation’s 52 largest metropolitan areas from 2001 to 2013, a period that extends from the bust of the last tech expansion to the flowering of the current one.

We looked at employment in the industries we normally associate with technology, such as software, engineering and computer programming services.

The four metro areas that have generated tech jobs at the fastest pace over the past 12 years are far outside the Bay Area, in the southern half of the country, in places with lower costs of living and generally friendly business climates.

In first place: Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, Texas, where tech companies have expanded employment by 41% since 2001 and the number of STEM workers has risen by 17% over the same period. Looking at the near-term, 2010-13, the Austin metro area also ranks first in the nation.

The keys to Austin’s success lies largely in its affordability and high quality of life, both in its small urban core and rapidly expanding suburbs. Best known as the hometown of Dell, a host of West Coast tech titans have set up shop there in recent years, including AMD, IBM, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Oracle.

Conversely

Most large urban centers have not done particularly well in technology over the past decade.

None of the three largest metro areas in the country — New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — made it into the top half of our rankings.

New York, where any two nerds in a room can expect gushing media attention, clocks in at 36th. Some locals claim the city is now second to the Silicon Valley in tech, but that is widely off the mark. Since 2001, Gotham’s tech industry growth has been a paltry 6% while the number of STEM related jobs has fallen 4%.

The chances of Gotham becoming a major tech center are handicapped not only by high costs and taxes, but a distinct lack of engineering talent. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nation’s 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.

This means that tech growth is likely to be limited largely to areas like new media, which will be hard-pressed to replace jobs lost in more traditional information industries. Since 2001 newspaper publishing has lost almost 200,000 jobs nationwide, or 45% of its total, while employment at periodicals has dropped 51,000,or 30%, and book publishing, an industry overwhelmingly concentrated in New York, has lost 17,000 jobs, or 20% of its total.

The prospects for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana (38th) and Chicago-Joliet-Naperville (42nd) seem no better. Due in large part to the continuing shrinkage of its aerospace sector, the number of STEM jobs in the L.A. area is down 6.3% since 2001though tech industry employment has grown a modest 12%. For its part, Chicago has experience significant decline in both tech employment and STEM jobs over the past 12 years.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 20, 2014, 18:02 »

I know some of you consider Shutterstock a "tech" company, but from my POV they're an "art" company. (Or a blend of both.) They license art to advertising agencies, design firms and publishers, and many of those businesses are based in New York. Oringer is from New York, and I'm guessing the majority of his NY employees are from the NY area as well. Why would you expect him (and them) to move away from family, friends, job, the place they grew up and went to school and started the business, to move somewhere else—if being in NY works for this business?

This all seems to stem from the photos of their "cool" new space. Again from my POV, having working in ad agencies in Manhattan for most of my career, the space looks pretty much like every other ad agency/design firm/production house in the city, just a lot smaller. (Some ad agencies take up entire buildings and have tens of thousands of employees.) It just blends in with its target market. And they're centrally located near Grand Central and Penn Station, so it's a relatively easy commute, in Manhattan terms. How much money could moving possibly save them, when you compare it to their annual sales? And ho much more difficult would it be to land the big new clients who are giving us all those nice SODs?

farbled · « **Reply #47 on:** March 20, 2014, 19:29 »

I don't understand the big deal. If a company I supply chooses to be in a specific place, who cares? I don't own it, work for it, have a say in it, care who works there, what they're paid, what they eat, or anything else.

Just sell my * photos for me, pay me on time and don't decrease my commissions. Check check and check. So far so good.

(I just noticed they auto place an * for swear words. Cool!)

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #48 on:** March 20, 2014, 20:47 »

Anyone wanting or thinking about working in NY already knows what they are in for or they will have found out real quick by WOM (word of mouth) and one simple trip there.

To work in the Big Apple and make the cash that can be made!

Then the trick is to just live outside where the COL (cost of living) is inexpensive and make sure you dont need to rely on PT (public transportation) to get to and from.

Find your route and your backways around about in case of traffic delays and detours that will be needed every now and then especially during the spring to fall times when the tourists are arriving from everywhere.

You can make a good living working in the city and living just outside of it as long as you can put up with the everyday occurrences that will pop up.

There are always going to be good and bad points to working anywhere you just need to weigh them out.

robhainer · « **Reply #49 on:** March 20, 2014, 21:17 »

Quote from: farbled on March 20, 2014, 19:29

I don't understand the big deal. If a company I supply chooses to be in a specific place, who cares? I don't own it, work for it, have a say in it, care who works there, what they're paid, what they eat, or anything else.

Just sell my * photos for me, pay me on time and don't decrease my commissions. Check check and check. So far so good.

(I just noticed they auto place an * for swear words. Cool!)

Because we're invested in that company making money for us. The less they spend on things like rent, the more they spend on marketing, and the more money I make.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer) (Read 37454 times)

tickstock

Ron

cthoman

gbalex

tickstock

Ron

Shelma1

tickstock

lisafx

lisafx

tickstock

dirkr

tickstock

gbalex

Ron

gbalex

Red Dove

Shelma1

cthoman

ComfortEagle2095

gbalex

Shelma1

farbled

ruxpriencdiam

robhainer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors