MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: luissantos84 on March 20, 2014, 02:38
-
http://www.inc.com/scott-gerber-and-jon-oringer/founders-forum-growth-hacking.html (http://www.inc.com/scott-gerber-and-jon-oringer/founders-forum-growth-hacking.html)
source: https://www.facebook.com/StockPhotographers (https://www.facebook.com/StockPhotographers)
-
[url]http://www.inc.com/scott-gerber-and-jon-oringer/founders-forum-growth-hacking.html[/url] ([url]http://www.inc.com/scott-gerber-and-jon-oringer/founders-forum-growth-hacking.html[/url])
source: [url]https://www.facebook.com/StockPhotographers[/url] ([url]https://www.facebook.com/StockPhotographers[/url])
BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA !
all he did was copying what dozens of similar agencies were doing, with the added bonus of the cheapest subs ever seen in the industry and sticking to the original format instead of doing a mess like iStock.
moral of the story, he's definitely the living proof that ideas are worthless and execution is king.
so, full respect for his managing skills and his accomplishments, but his rants about anything else are ridicolous, you'll hear the same sh-it from pretty much any entrepreneur on earth, they all either filled a niche or scr-ewed their competitors with unfair prices.
-
have you seen the same videos as I?
I don't think there was a single rant from Jon, only saw him "unsatisfied" with the lack of engineers in NY
I have found the all interview very friendly actually, you are just frustrated you haven't created SS yourself
-
saw him "unsatisfied" with the lack of engineers in NY
Because they moved elsewhere.
The travel times and crap to get to and from the city every day and night will wear on you, and to live there! :o :o :o
One room studio apartments that easily run well over $1000 a month not including utilities! :o :o :o
To live in NY can cost you well in excess of $25,000 a year! :o :o :o
-
If he wants to innovate and is not worried about competition, he could always pay us more. ;)
-
saw him "unsatisfied" with the lack of engineers in NY
Because they moved elsewhere.
The travel times and crap to get to and from the city every day and night will wear on you, and to live there! :o :o :o
One room studio apartments that easily run well over $1000 a month not including utilities! :o :o :o
To live in NY can cost you well in excess of $25,000 a year! :o :o :o
$1,000 a month? Maybe in NJ. The average apartment in Manhattan rents for close to $4,000/ month.
http://ny.curbed.com/tags/rental-market-reports (http://ny.curbed.com/tags/rental-market-reports)
-
saw him "unsatisfied" with the lack of engineers in NY
Because they moved elsewhere.
The travel times and crap to get to and from the city every day and night will wear on you, and to live there! :o :o :o
One room studio apartments that easily run well over $1000 a month not including utilities! :o :o :o
To live in NY can cost you well in excess of $25,000 a year! :o :o :o
$1,000 a month? Maybe in NJ. The average apartment in Manhattan rents for close to $4,000/ month.
[url]http://ny.curbed.com/tags/rental-market-reports[/url] ([url]http://ny.curbed.com/tags/rental-market-reports[/url])
There is a difference did you miss this?
One room studio apartments that easily run well over $1000
Not a regular apartment!!!!
-
The average studio is more than $2,000/month. In nice small black type.
http://nypost.com/2013/09/12/rents-take-a-small-dip-in-manhattan/ (http://nypost.com/2013/09/12/rents-take-a-small-dip-in-manhattan/)
-
jesus, you guys are so spoiled.
25.000 is just so cheap.
-
The good thing about renting a studio- is that you can write the entire rent off as business costs! 8)
-
jesus, you guys are so spoiled.
25.000 is just so cheap.
Some of it is relative. They pay you more in some areas, but it cost more to live there so you really don't earn any more.
-
The average studio is more than $2,000/month. In nice small black type.
[url]http://nypost.com/2013/09/12/rents-take-a-small-dip-in-manhattan/[/url] ([url]http://nypost.com/2013/09/12/rents-take-a-small-dip-in-manhattan/[/url])
Yes $2,071 is well over $1000 a month.
-
jesus, you guys are so spoiled.
25.000 is just so cheap.
Some of it is relative. They pay you more in some areas, but it cost more to live there so you really don't earn any more.
Dont get me talking about costs of living.
-
saw him "unsatisfied" with the lack of engineers in NY
Because they moved elsewhere.
The travel times and crap to get to and from the city every day and night will wear on you, and to live there! :o :o :o
One room studio apartments that easily run well over $1000 a month not including utilities! :o :o :o
To live in NY can cost you well in excess of $25,000 a year! :o :o :o
$1,000 a month? Maybe in NJ. The average apartment in Manhattan rents for close to $4,000/ month.
[url]http://ny.curbed.com/tags/rental-market-reports[/url] ([url]http://ny.curbed.com/tags/rental-market-reports[/url])
The video segment on Location says it all. Shutterstock could easily operate anywhere in the US and they chose to locate their main offices and employees in the most expensive real estate in the US.
The living expenses for the employees are prohibitive and employee quality of life drops across the board because of those increased living expenses. These high cost's also decrease employee retention and increase training expenses for new employees to replace those who leave the city.
To put it into perspective, we are talking about 300 employees using an office location that required 10 plus million dollars in tenant improvements this year with an additional 3 million a year of reoccurring annual rents to house a measly 300 employees over the last year alone. Those high location numbers do not include increased health care expenses etc.
Jon had many other options that would have put the company in a much better competitive position in regard to expenses and employee acquisition.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602)
-
1 - its not your company and Jon haven't consulted you
2 - Jon haven't talked about how expensive is to live or hire people in NY, you have...
again why don't you open your agency and run it as you say, we would be delighted to contribute to it ;)
-
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.
-
1 - its not your company and Jon haven't consulted you
2 - Jon haven't talked about how expensive is to live or hire people in NY, you have...
again why don't you open your agency and run it as you say, we would be delighted to contribute to it ;)
I can remember as a kid tying to convince my father to move the main office to one of our satellite locations by the sea. He responded with anger and called me selfish. He asked me to think about how the move would affect different families I knew who worked for the company. He asked me where they would live with the incomes they made. Wise business owners set up their companies to succeed long term in very competitive environments. And they make those decisions with everyone who works for the company in mind. They locate in areas that will give the company competitive advantages without being prohibitively expensive. And they make sure those locals also offer the employees who work for them good quality of life.
At this stage in the game, why would anyone want to open a business where you had to take the bread off the table of your suppliers to remain competitive. My father can go to sleep at night because for many years he has made choices based on what is best for the company as a whole. Jon not so much, thou it has worked out nicely for him.
-
At this stage in the game, why would anyone want to open a business where you had to take the bread off the table of your suppliers to remain competitive.
so you are afraid of paying us badly, oh right
anyway, does that mean that Stocksy and Symbio are going to fail?
-
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.
-
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.
You don't sound convinced. ;)
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
At this stage in the game, why would anyone want to open a business where you had to take the bread off the table of your suppliers to remain competitive.
so you are afraid of paying us badly, oh right
anyway, does that mean that Stocksy and Symbio are going to fail?
Stocksy, DT, etc. are very low overhead. That gives them an competitive advantage and more room for suppliers to earn a fair income. That said I do not envy those companies they have a very rough road ahead of them because Shutterstock has chosen to undercut buyer pricing while paying suppliers less every year to gain market share. As you know they have no problem admitting this to the world.
If Stocksy can overcome those odds, while paying suppliers a fair percentage they will have my admiration.
-
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. 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 for 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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602)
-
.
-
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.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url])
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.
-
.
-
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.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
-
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%?
-
.
-
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.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-makes-35-million-images-free-in-fight-against-copyright-infringemen/msg369602/#msg369602[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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 nations 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 Austins 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, Gothams 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 nations 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.
-
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 elseif 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?
-
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!)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 elseif 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?
1. We forget that shutterstock does not produce any of the assets that they earn their livelihood from. They would not have any product to sell if we did not use our own funds to pay for and produce that content. We pay shutterstock to represent our assets and with that comes responsibility to the contributors as a whole to maintain the value of those assets.
2. I might agree with you if shutterstock charged anything near the prices that Manhattan ad agencies, design firm and production houses charge. Instead shutters charge as low as .16 cents per image for assets they did not pay for or produce themselves. They have not given contributors a raise in over 8 years yet they expect us to completely shoulder the increased production and business expenses we have seen each of those 8 or 9 years.
3. They expect to be able to capture market shared by driving the value of our assets down while paying for the most expensive office space, tax's, employee and company expenses in the United States. In the mean time our income on shutterstock has less purchasing power and we are starting to see producers like Yuri move to less expensive countries so that they can compete while shutterstock makes no effort to protect the value of our assets or to offer a fair living profit from our work.
4. Based on sudden drops in income more and more contributors are starting to believe that their work is getting less exposure while shutterstock uses skill feed, the Istock backlash and advertising to bring in larger quantities of images from new contributors who for a time will earn less in royalties. http://tinyurl.com/nkmkgwn (http://tinyurl.com/nkmkgwn)
5. The long term price undercutting that shutterstock has purposely carried out to gain market share has develued our assets and affected the entire industry. Not just shutterstock contributors.
Mike did a great job of putting the inequity of the situation into words regarding the search changes.
"The change was very abrupt and since that change things haven't got back to what once were. It is true there is more competition, more files, etc., but those things didn't changed from one day to another.
It's not "old vs new" ports, it's not trying to intimidate anyone or being jealous of the success of anyone. Is just being objective and calling things what they are.
Yes, there are some contributors doing well and seeing monthly increases in their Shutterstock's earnings with their new uploads, but does that means things are alright? I think there's a chance if it wasn't for that big change that took place last year they would do even better with their current ports.
Also, this is not about being negative. We could say "there's nothing we can do but keep uploading" and stop talking about it, but that's like saying "we're ok with everything here". We don't have to remain silent about things we find unfair, and frankly I don't want everybody to think "everything's alright at Shutterstock, all contributors are happy" because that isn't true."
-
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.
Invested as in bought stock? Then yes, complain away, legitimately so. And no, they aren't there to make money for us. They are required to make money for themselves. We are independent suppliers using an outlet. I'm not invested in them at all. I just have a mutually beneficial relationship with them that currently works for me. When it doesn't, I won't.
You're also assuming that any savings would go to marketing instead of to shareholders.
-
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 elseif 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?
Excellent points. Not to mention that I see ads all the time on tv touting ten year tax deferments and other incentives for companies to locate in New York, and I live in Florida. Evidently NY is making a concerted effort to attract and retain businesses. FWIW, Florida is a cultural wasteland compared to NYC, and I have lived in both Miami and Tampa, which are two of the biggest centers of "culture" in the state. If the folks at SS can make it work in NYC, more power to them.
-
No. I mean invested as in all the time I've spent uploading and keywording images to their site with the expectation of a return for my efforts.
-
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.
ROFLMAO! What on Earth makes you think that if they were headquartered somewhere cheaper that would mean more money in your pocket? The sites headquartered in Calgary, Ft Lauderdale, and other more affordable locations are making us LESS. ::)
-
.
-
If I was making millions and millions of dollars I would love to live in downtown NYC and work in an iconic building. I can't fault a rich guy from enjoying his money.
There, something we agree on. :)
-
Frankly, i don't think too highly of Jon Oringer. I couldnt go past 2 mins of that video as i think he was a tech geek with drive at the right place and the right time. His face reminds me of a weasel. I don't even consider him a photographer. I remember reading something in the lines of he took over 10,000 snapshots or something like that himself the first year.
When i was thinking about leaving exclusivity at istock, I remember asking one of the SS employee over the phone how much does a successful designer make at SS and he told me "some designers even make a couple of hundred a week!" Like that was supposed to impress me. At least at istock back then, lots of people made an actual living contributing to one site. thats when the woo-yeahs were all over the place b4 bruce cashed out good.
SS is a successful company and the best contributors are only making hundreds per week? That is just sad. Its sad because SS top suppliers are probably getting paid half as much as their newest hire with his pimply face fetching coffee... exploitation or capitalism or both...
I guess it really is a love hate relationship between me and SS. * you for bringing in all the buyers with your cheap sub prices. The content quality has gotten way better than when you introduced your subscription price model of your 10,0000 snap shots. Im waiting till i get enough of my own stuff to open my own online shop to stop supplying you...
-
moral of the story, he's definitely the living proof that ideas are worthless and execution is king.
I would second this! Now hard feelings though.
-
moral of the story, he's definitely the living proof that ideas are worthless and execution is king.
I would second this! Now hard feelings though.
3rd'd And as for Jon being a photographer....who cares. The manager of my favorite football team was rubbish at football. My milkman can't make milk. Jon built it and they came. The trick he developed was how to keep them there and also to bring their mates along.
-
The main thing Jon has done from a success story is to not destroy "the original concept" of the micro stock model. He improved it for SS while most of the others try mega trickery, deception, cheating, lies, more lies, commission cuts, etc. And for that little bit, I am appreciative.
-
1. We forget that shutterstock does not produce any of the assets that they earn their livelihood from. They would not have any product to sell if we did not use our own funds to pay for and produce that content. We pay shutterstock to represent our assets and with that comes responsibility to the contributors as a whole to maintain the value of those assets.
Who forgot that? (Of course, as an illustrator, my costs are pretty low.)
2. I might agree with you if shutterstock charged anything near the prices that Manhattan ad agencies, design firm and production houses charge. Instead shutters charge as low as .16 cents per image for assets they did not pay for or produce themselves. They have not given contributors a raise in over 8 years yet they expect us to completely shoulder the increased production and business expenses we have seen each of those 8 or 9 years.
I've gotten a raise. SOD's, etc. have more than doubled my earnings per DL over the past year.
3. They expect to be able to capture market shared by driving the value of our assets down while paying for the most expensive office space, tax's, employee and company expenses in the United States. In the mean time our income on shutterstock has less purchasing power and we are starting to see producers like Yuri move to less expensive countries so that they can compete while shutterstock makes no effort to protect the value of our assets or to offer a fair living profit from our work.
The value of my assets has risen, as evidenced by the increase in my earnings per DL. Not that I don't wish they'd pay me a larger percentage.
4. Based on sudden drops in income more and more contributors are starting to believe that their work is getting less exposure while shutterstock uses skill feed, the Istock backlash and advertising to bring in larger quantities of images from new contributors who for a time will earn less in royalties. [url]http://tinyurl.com/nkmkgwn[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/nkmkgwn[/url])
But not everyone is seeing less in royalties.
5. The long term price undercutting that shutterstock has purposely carried out to gain market share has develued our assets and affected the entire industry. Not just shutterstock contributors.
Mike did a great job of putting the inequity of the situation into words regarding the search changes.
"The change was very abrupt and since that change things haven't got back to what once were. It is true there is more competition, more files, etc., but those things didn't changed from one day to another.
It's not "old vs new" ports, it's not trying to intimidate anyone or being jealous of the success of anyone. Is just being objective and calling things what they are.
Yes, there are some contributors doing well and seeing monthly increases in their Shutterstock's earnings with their new uploads, but does that means things are alright? I think there's a chance if it wasn't for that big change that took place last year they would do even better with their current ports.
Also, this is not about being negative. We could say "there's nothing we can do but keep uploading" and stop talking about it, but that's like saying "we're ok with everything here". We don't have to remain silent about things we find unfair, and frankly I don't want everybody to think "everything's alright at Shutterstock, all contributors are happy" because that isn't true."
Well, OK, you can complain about things you feel are unfair, but moving their offices to a different building in the same city they've always been in is a pretty small part of the equation.
-
Shelma we can agree to disagree. You have ties to the area while I do not and we are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours thou I do not agree with it.
I still belive that considering shutterstocks revenue; 13 million plus in one year is excessive spend for office space. There are are plenty of large companies in cheaper areas than Manhattan who agree with me and are relocating to better business environments http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q (http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q)
In many cases it is not difficult for employees to understand that they would have a higher standard of life elsewhere. http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr (http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr)
It is not hard to understand Manhattan's lack of engineering talent when housing costs 444% more than other nice areas which offer a greater number high tech jobs. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nations 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.
-
Shelma we can agree to disagree. You have ties to the area while I do not and we are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours thou I do not agree with it.
I still belive that considering shutterstocks revenue; 13 million plus in one year is excessive spend for office space. There are are plenty of large companies in cheaper areas than Manhattan who agree with me and are relocating to better business environments [url]http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q[/url])
In many cases it is not difficult for employees to understand that they would have a higher standard of life elsewhere. [url]http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr[/url])
It is not hard to understand Manhattan's lack of engineering talent when housing costs 444% more than other nice areas which offer a greater number high tech jobs. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nations 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.
LOL. You're one step away from printing up the "Make Shutterstock Weird" t-shirts and bumper stickers. ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird)
-
Shelma we can agree to disagree. You have ties to the area while I do not and we are all entitled to our own opinions. I respect yours thou I do not agree with it.
I still belive that considering shutterstocks revenue; 13 million plus in one year is excessive spend for office space. There are are plenty of large companies in cheaper areas than Manhattan who agree with me and are relocating to better business environments [url]http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/q93cb5q[/url])
In many cases it is not difficult for employees to understand that they would have a higher standard of life elsewhere. [url]http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/palnxzr[/url])
It is not hard to understand Manhattan's lack of engineering talent when housing costs 444% more than other nice areas which offer a greater number high tech jobs. On a per capita basis, the New York area ranks 78th out of the nations 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.
LOL. You're one step away from printing up the "Make Shutterstock Weird" t-shirts and bumper stickers. ;D
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird[/url])
LOL Burning Flipside would never be the same
-
1. We forget that shutterstock does not produce any of the assets that they earn their livelihood from. They would not have any product to sell if we did not use our own funds to pay for and produce that content. We pay shutterstock to represent our assets and with that comes responsibility to the contributors as a whole to maintain the value of those assets.
Nobody has forgotten that. Certainly not SS and neither have we. SS just provides a marketplace and it is up to us to send content there.
We are not employees, we can use any marketplace we want. The files are not exclusive either, so working with them is really simple, no strings attached.
I also donīt understand all these complaints about their offices in New York.
New York is an attractive city to live in inspite of the high prices. If you want to attract young, creative high quality people...London, New York, Zurich are much more attractive than the middle of nowhere.
Who wants to live in a boring suburb or country town if you can be in a vibrant metropolis??
There are plenty of agencies in the middle of nowhere or in much cheaper countries, but they are not as successful as SS.
If anything having a great location in an iconic building is probably an asset for branding and attracting large company customers.
Where do you want to receive the next fortune 500 marketing managers for multi million dollar contracts? In a small town industrial region or in NEW YORK?
Looks like a good move to me. They are updating the value of their brand, they have more of these SOD and other high priced downloads, they are pushing OFFset as a macro brand.
Iīd say they know what they are doing.
-
Who wants to live in a boring suburb or country town if you can be in a vibrant metropolis??
I don't know. Austin is pretty nice too. I definitely wouldn't call it boring. I've been to New York several times. It's nice, but I'd rather live here.
-
Snip
New York is an attractive city to live in inspite of the high prices. If you want to attract young, creative high quality people...London, New York, Zurich are much more attractive than the middle of nowhere.
Who wants to live in a boring suburb or country town if you can be in a vibrant metropolis??
Snip
Where do you want to receive the next fortune 500 marketing managers for multi million dollar contracts? In a small town industrial region or in NEW YORK?
In reality there are greater numbers of Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies outside of New York. Austin and other non industrial locations are home to the majority of the Fortune 500 companies. In those locations you will find young, creative, high quality people who are more than happy living outside of London, New York and Zurich. They may even find a few interesting things to do outside of the Apple.
While New York is a nice place to visit, I will pass on the nasty dose of air pollution that the city has to offer. Vibrancy is difficult when you are fighting crowds, chocking on smog and working 24/7 to pay your bills. http://tinyurl.com/k5y5h75 (http://tinyurl.com/k5y5h75)
Topographical Map Of The U.S. Based On Revenues Of Fortune 500 Companies
(http://lindaeckstein.com/images/archive/500map_90.jpg)
Topographical map of United States Population Density
(http://www.infohow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/United-States-Population-Density-A.png)
-
SS has always been in New York. And inspite of the bad air they are trememdously successful. So either the location didn't hurt their success or is giving them an advantage over a place like istock, that is located in a tiny city compared to NY.
I am sorry, I really don't understand the problem. Why should they relocate to another city and force 300 (or 400?) employees and their families to move?
For me staying where the company was founded but moving into an upscale location that will increase brand awareness makes a lot of sense.
But if you don't approve of SS or the way they run their business, just focus your energies on other marketplaces. istock and Fotolia or Dreamstime. pond5?
Did you check if their offices have low rents and are located in cities you personally prefer?
If for you this is an important aspect and will influence your decisions where you uplpad, fair enough.
But for me this seems like a very positive business choice.
-
Who wants to live in a boring suburb or country town if you can be in a vibrant metropolis??
Me 8) I would prefer the middle of nowhere instead of each vibrant city :)
-
Everyone is different. I enjoy visiting the countryside, but I would never want to live there. I am a city person. Stadtmensch ;)
-
I understand a lot of discussion about Shutterstock's actions, but pissing and moaning about a choice of office is just envy.
-
they could save a lot of money moving to India or China or whatever backwater area in the US but one of the reasons they stay in NYC is to show they can afford a prestigious and expensive location and this is probably an important factor for investors since now they're a public company.
-
To be honest, I've got more important things to worry about....and I find it bewildering that some of the posters here who moan about declining sales in numerous threads have the time to research and post reams of this stuff that they cannot influence or change. What a waste of precious time.
-
We had a two-part documentary on TV a couple of weeks back. Maybe some Brit will recognise it and post the name of it - I thought it was 'A divided country' but I can't find it under that title.
My husband watched it, and what impressed him (i.e. that he told me about) was that so many companies in the creative and hi-tech sectors in the UK and even Europe are relocating to London because the buzz and intermixing seems to help all companies to rise. He didn't explain how it works, whether it's hi-tech types mixing ad mingling in bars and gyms or whatever, but it definitely seem to work, but to the detriment of other UK cities, which are losing out.
OTOH, what I've also heard about a lot of these companies is the long, exhausting hours you spend working, so you have little or no outside life, so it hardly matters if you're in a big, vibrant city or a remote hamlet. Your work is your life, so either you have to love it, or save like mad to leave young. I met a young woman last year who works intensively as some sort of IT consultant 7-8 months of the year and travels for the other 4-5 months.
All that said, I can see why, since SS started in NY, they'd want to stay there. No point in uprooting your staff, and at least equally importantly, their families; potentially losing good people at the move or down the line.
-
To be honest, I've got more important things to worry about....and I find it bewildering that some of the posters here who moan about declining sales in numerous threads have the time to research and post reams of this stuff that they cannot influence or change. What a waste of precious time.
Just like you taking your precious time to read the thread and post about them wasting their precious time.
-
^^You're right. This is a waste of my time.
-
To be honest, I've got more important things to worry about....and I find it bewildering that some of the posters here who moan about declining sales in numerous threads have the time to research and post reams of this stuff that they cannot influence or change. What a waste of precious time.
Just like you taking your precious time to read the thread and post about them wasting their precious time.
I have already gathered this info and more while earning a living wage outside of stock. As we all know our passions are not always the ones which pay the bills. That is especially true after SS flipped the switch on our files last March. For all the posturing about the vibrancy and advantages of New York. One would think that the millions of people living there would be able to generate more Fortune 500 companies which produced higher revenue.
Some of us work for smart companies who do research such things and that information is used to drive and generate greater profit for the company! You can see this in the revenue bumps on the maps I offered. One thing I have found in life, is that if you ask questions and use your head the world is never as simple as it appears.
-
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
-
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
I am sure shutterstock will be happy with your response. With so many of us willing to give them passes, it is no wonder they are charging as low as .16 cents per file to sell our images. If we do not value our own assets it is clear shutterstock will not either.
The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success. I am not fine with the recent drops for older contributors and you should not be either, none of us are new for ever.
-
Like I said, I just choose not to care about this silly upheaval about their office. You will hear me speak up when there is an issue I think it is worth it. I have taken plenty of action when I dont like what an agency is doing, and I speak with my images, by removing them. I have dropped PD, BS, DP, DT, Alamy and a few are on the watchlist such as FT and PD. Shutterstock is not on my list, thats all.
Note: Shutterstock also sells files for as high as 360 dollar (no not OFFset). If you focus on the 16 cent, I will focus on the other stuff.
-
The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success.
is this really the way that you see yourself? At their mercy? Like an employee? But why? You are not an exclusive artist. You can just deactivate the content you believe should get more money and send it to the agencies that pay out more.
And then only upload content that is adequate for the returns at SS.
Or put your energy into symbiostock to build something you truly control.
Or work hard to find a niche that will sell well at macro agencies and send them there.
I understand the anger of losing money with abrupt best match swings, but since you are not exclusive, isnīt this where your business experience can shine by lessening your dependency on SS?
It is up to you, but if I was as upset as you are with an agency, I would focus my energies where I believe my future is.
What would interest me though is - which agency would you recommend to encourage? Pond5 maybe? stocksy? Bruce said they are taking another 500 artists this year, have you applied? They start accepting again in April.
Or symbiostock?
Or even within SS - what kind of content gets more of the 28 dollar or 100 dollar downloads than others? Can you identify trends and shoot for that instead of focussing on the 16 cents downloads (which so far I havenīt received, the lowest was always 25 or now 33 cents).
-
I have no idea where the 16 dollar cents comes from, Shutterstock lowest image purchase price is 0.224 euro cent. Not sure what they charge in dollars but it wont be lower as 23 dollar cent presumably.
-
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
I am sure shutterstock will be happy with your response. With so many of us willing to give them passes, it is no wonder they are charging as low as .16 cents per file to sell our images. If we do not value our own assets it is clear shutterstock will not either.
The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success. I am not fine with the recent drops for older contributors and you should not be either, none of us are new for ever.
I'm not getting the 16Ē thing either, to be honest. This year Shutterstock has blown past iStock in the average amount I earn per DL. So one company being located in Calgary has not helped me earn more the other being located in New York.
And to show a map where WalMart dominates in terms of profits...if you think Shutterstock is bad, then WalMart is evil incarnate. Talk about profiting at the expense of your employeesthe Waltons are the richest family in the world, and they got there by putting local businesses out of business and paying their employees subsistence wages. Being based in Arkansas hasn't helped their employees any.
-
they could save a lot of money moving to India or China or whatever backwater area in the US but one of the reasons they stay in NYC is to show they can afford a prestigious and expensive location and this is probably an important factor for investors since now they're a public company.
I think that was the point of wasting money. I really don't care where they are located. It is their business to run, but I also don't see anything wrong with criticizing the way they run their business. At the end of the day, all their decisions can come back to bite us in the butt, so there isn't anything wrong at taking a look at them.
-
:)
-
If you do not like where they are located, how they do marketing, how much profit (you imagine) they make, etc. etc. etc. then why do you stay and even worry about it?
Simple because it all affects my business and my livelihood.
-
I totally get that. My sales dropped as well after "maintenance" a few months ago (I've worked to get them back up and have raised my earnings past that point since then).
But their offices...it' just really difficult to quantify whether that's a good thing to spend their money on. To you it may seem like a lot of money, but in the scheme of things it may not be much to pay for office space in Manhattan. They could move elsewhere, but that would require a huge upheaval, letting go of hundreds of employees and rehiring, which could cost even more. And you'd have to get hundreds of people up to speed on all the projects current employees are working on.
And perhaps being in NY is partially responsible for their success. Perhaps it's a good thing for creative directors and art buyers to visit their space. It may show them Shutterstock is a successful company that's not going anywhere, and they'll be more likely to sign on as clients. And Manhattan's where the advertising money is. You're bringing around creative people who work in "cool" spaces. They expect your space to be "cool" too.
-
I totally get that. My sales dropped as well after "maintenance" a few months ago (I've worked to get them back up and have raised my earnings past that point since then).
But their offices...it' just really difficult to quantify whether that's a good thing to spend their money on. To you it may seem like a lot of money, but in the scheme of things it may not be much to pay for office space in Manhattan. They could move elsewhere, but that would require a huge upheaval, letting go of hundreds of employees and rehiring, which could cost even more. And you'd have to get hundreds of people up to speed on all the projects current employees are working on.
And perhaps being in NY is partially responsible for their success. Perhaps it's a good thing for creative directors and art buyers to visit their space. It may show them Shutterstock is a successful company that's not going anywhere, and they'll be more likely to sign on as clients. And Manhattan's where the advertising money is. You're bringing around creative people who work in "cool" spaces. They expect your space to be "cool" too.
Honestly, I was more amused by the insinuation that America is a barren hillbilly wasteland outside of New York. Not that anybody said that, but it almost seemed implied. I don't really care where their offices are.
-
I am anything but fine with the sales drops that I and other mature portfolios are seeing on SS. Do I for one second think that is a result of their office location? Nope. The sites located in
backwaters" less cosmopolitan areas" are making me, and most of us LESS!
But really, all that is totally beside the point. I just think it takes some serious b@11s to think that selling a few k images through a website entitles any of us to dictate where the owners and employees have to live. Unbelievable, really.
-
Like I said, I just choose not to care about this silly upheaval about their office. You will hear me speak up when there is an issue I think it is worth it. I have taken plenty of action when I dont like what an agency is doing, and I speak with my images, by removing them. I have dropped PD, BS, DP, DT, Alamy and a few are on the watchlist such as FT and PD. Shutterstock is not on my list, thats all.
Note: Shutterstock also sells files for as high as 360 dollar (no not OFFset). If you focus on the 16 cent, I will focus on the other stuff.
I also have positives to share about shutterstock, however with so many focusing on the positives I feel talking about those is a moot point.
Until that trend changes, I will focus on the challenges
-
I've never gotten a 16 cent commission from SS. I do however remember getting a 7 cent commission from another reseller (that was one of my very last sales there btw). If SS chooses to sell some loss leaders, who cares? As long as the artists get the full commission they're due (which they do). While so many agencies are "racing to the bottom" at our expense it is nice to see one that is thriving without making things worse for most of us.
I feel for the people who have their numbers go down from whatever change happened last year, but like someone else said, office locations are unlikely to be the cause.
-
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
I am sure shutterstock will be happy with your response. With so many of us willing to give them passes, it is no wonder they are charging as low as .16 cents per file to sell our images. If we do not value our own assets it is clear shutterstock will not either.
The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success. I am not fine with the recent drops for older contributors and you should not be either, none of us are new for ever.
I'm not getting the 16Ē thing either, to be honest. This year Shutterstock has blown past iStock in the average amount I earn per DL. So one company being located in Calgary has not helped me earn more the other being located in New York.
And to show a map where WalMart dominates in terms of profits...if you think Shutterstock is bad, then WalMart is evil incarnate. Talk about profiting at the expense of your employeesthe Waltons are the richest family in the world, and they got there by putting local businesses out of business and paying their employees subsistence wages. Being based in Arkansas hasn't helped their employees any.
It is really not difficult to understand that if shutterstock/bigstock charges customers .16 cents per image or even less for team subscriptions there will be less $$$$$$ to contribute toward contributor royalties. How low is too low for you guys? Will .000001 cents be too low? That is where we are headed.
-
:)
-
It is really not difficult to understand that if shutterstock/bigstock charges customers .16 cents per images or even less for teams subscripts there will be less $$$$$$ to contribute toward contributor royalties. How low is too low for you guys? Will .000001 cents be too low? That is where we are headed.
Again, it hasn't happened, so why is this an issue for you? They have consistently kept commissions from decreasing at Shutterstock (I don't contribute to bigstock).
-
I am anything but fine with the sales drops that I and other mature portfolios are seeing on SS. Do I for one second think that is a result of their office location? Nope. The sites located in backwaters" less cosmopolitan areas" are making me, and most of us LESS!
But really, all that is totally beside the point. I just think it takes some serious b@11s to think that selling a few k images through a website entitles any of us to dictate where the owners and employees have to live. Unbelievable, really.
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.
-
If you do not like where they are located, how they do marketing, how much profit (you imagine) they make, etc. etc. etc. then why do you stay and even worry about it?
Simple because it all affects my business and my livelihood.
If YOU think it effects your lively hood, than DO SOMETHING YOURSELF to change it!
Geesh
I read all these threads "my sales have dropped" "I have no sales" "the Sky is Falling due to this or that"
Give me a break!
I am now at almost 12,000 images.
My sales are BETTER THAN EVER!
(edited out this sentence to not reveal my secret to sales success)
Again I take control of My Destiny and do not whine like a little school girl (hey that gives me an idea for a stock photo, no stealing my idea!) about where someone works or what or how they run their business.
I make my own raises and my sales prove it.
Have an Awesome Day!
I've done plenty, but it is an uphill battle. One that I've given up fighting. Nobody cares if I stay or go. I can be replaced in a day at any of these agencies (so can anybody else). The only one who is going to be out money is me. It's really about the collective. So unless everybody comes to the same conclusion about the state of any particular agency, nothing can really be done. Other than a little grumbling here and there. :)
-
It is really not difficult to understand that if shutterstock/bigstock charges customers .16 cents per images or even less for teams subscripts there will be less $$$$$$ to contribute toward contributor royalties. How low is too low for you guys? Will .000001 cents be too low? That is where we are headed.
Again, it hasn't happened, so why is this an issue for you? They have consistently kept commissions from decreasing at Shutterstock (I don't contribute to bigstock).
Are you fine with the relatively recent .16 cents then?
-
If you do not like where they are located, how they do marketing, how much profit (you imagine) they make, etc. etc. etc. then why do you stay and even worry about it?
Simple because it all affects my business and my livelihood.
If YOU think it effects your lively hood, than DO SOMETHING YOURSELF to change it!
Geesh
I read all these threads "my sales have dropped" "I have no sales" "the Sky is Falling due to this or that"
Give me a break!
I am now at almost 12,000 images.
My sales are BETTER THAN EVER!
(edited out this sentence to not reveal my secret to sales success)
Again I take control of My Destiny and do not whine like a little school girl (hey that gives me an idea for a stock photo, no stealing my idea!) about where someone works or what or how they run their business.
I make my own raises and my sales prove it.
Have an Awesome Day!
I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're saying. Maybe if you post a picture of your dog it would make more sense...?
-
I totally get that. My sales dropped as well after "maintenance" a few months ago (I've worked to get them back up and have raised my earnings past that point since then).
But their offices...it' just really difficult to quantify whether that's a good thing to spend their money on. To you it may seem like a lot of money, but in the scheme of things it may not be much to pay for office space in Manhattan. They could move elsewhere, but that would require a huge upheaval, letting go of hundreds of employees and rehiring, which could cost even more. And you'd have to get hundreds of people up to speed on all the projects current employees are working on.
And perhaps being in NY is partially responsible for their success. Perhaps it's a good thing for creative directors and art buyers to visit their space. It may show them Shutterstock is a successful company that's not going anywhere, and they'll be more likely to sign on as clients. And Manhattan's where the advertising money is. You're bringing around creative people who work in "cool" spaces. They expect your space to be "cool" too.
Honestly, I was more amused by the insinuation that America is a barren hillbilly wasteland outside of New York. Not that anybody said that, but it almost seemed implied. I don't really care where their offices are.
I'm not sure where you got that insinuation. Hope it wasn't from me. I'm trying to get my illustration portfolio to a point where I can move away from New York. I'm working in a "cool space" in Manhattan now (heavy on chartreuse)..cool chandeliers, awesome little seating areas, kitchen's to die for (it's gotta be 1200 square feet), free donuts on Friday...and I far prefer my dining room table at home as a work space. No commute, no noise, no pollution, no long hours, no stress. My friends don't understand why I don't adore Manhattan (well, except maybe the one friend who relocated to Austin). I'd far prefer to be on a horse ranch somewhere.
-
:)
-
Are you fine with the relatively recent .16 cents then?
If they pay me a 16 cent commission, then no. Of course not. But it hasn't happened. If it does I will sell somewhere else. Until then, I'll keep going like I'm going. I've left enough agencies that try and screw us over, so I am careful with whom I deal with. So far, they've been upfront about pretty much everything. Certainly more than most others.
-
I like my world to be simple, so I choose to ignore certain issues I am not able to change or have no interest in changing. The Shutterstock office location is one I choose to ignore. I'll pick other battles to fight. Each to their own.
I am sure shutterstock will be happy with your response. With so many of us willing to give them passes, it is no wonder they are charging as low as .16 cents per file to sell our images. If we do not value our own assets it is clear shutterstock will not either.
The files I generate are worth more and I expect shutterstock to protect their value and operate the company in a manner which provides a fair living wage for those of us who have supported their success. I am not fine with the recent drops for older contributors and you should not be either, none of us are new for ever.
I'm not getting the 16Ē thing either, to be honest. This year Shutterstock has blown past iStock in the average amount I earn per DL. So one company being located in Calgary has not helped me earn more the other being located in New York.
And to show a map where WalMart dominates in terms of profits...if you think Shutterstock is bad, then WalMart is evil incarnate. Talk about profiting at the expense of your employeesthe Waltons are the richest family in the world, and they got there by putting local businesses out of business and paying their employees subsistence wages. Being based in Arkansas hasn't helped their employees any.
It is really not difficult to understand that if shutterstock/bigstock charges customers .16 cents per image or even less for team subscriptions there will be less $$$$$$ to contribute toward contributor royalties. How low is too low for you guys? Will .000001 cents be too low? That is where we are headed.
Its all relative, I dont have images on BS, so my images are not sold for 16 cent. Dragging in the 16 cent from another agency shows your arguing tactics. I dont care for that. Thats why I didnt understand the 16 cent, we are talking about SS here. Lisa makes a VERY good point, which I had in mind as well. Who are we to tell Shutterstock where to set up office?
My images are sold on SS, and the cheapest price is 24 euro cent, I get 36 dollar cent, or 110% royalty. ;)
-
:)
-
Many agencies are offering files "from 15 cents" to customers, but still pay out a regular subs royalty to their artists. This is possible because the average customer never maximises their download option. This has been the case since subscription sites started, so I really donīt understand what is new about that. It is an over 10 year old phenomenon.
Getty/istock are the ones that pay out 0.001 cent with their connect program, now offer 35 million expensive files for free and have just announced a subs program that is much lower than all the other sites.
They also kicked their exclusives badly, first they take away their option to send content to PP where they would have received 42-46 cents citing "we only want to offer our exclusive artists upstream options" but then they bring the subs to istock with a subs royalty that is even lower then what SS pays out for indie content.
And the exclusives never produced that content for the subs market. They have absolutely no choice.
So if you want to worry about low subs royalties, I would suggest we all return to the istock thread about subs. Because that is the place where everyones income will be dropping soon - for both exclusives and the indies.
If they aggressively market their subs program we are all guaranteed to lose money. And the exclusives will be hit hardest.
ETA: just talk to fotolia artist that are either fully exclusive or have exclusive content there and had those files opted out of subs. Ask them what happened when subs where introduced on all content and how it affected their income.
-
I am anything but fine with the sales drops that I and other mature portfolios are seeing on SS. Do I for one second think that is a result of their office location? Nope. The sites located in backwaters" less cosmopolitan areas" are making me, and most of us LESS!
But really, all that is totally beside the point. I just think it takes some serious b@11s to think that selling a few k images through a website entitles any of us to dictate where the owners and employees have to live. Unbelievable, really.
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.
You are a true Brain Washed Liberal aren't you?
I bet you are for the NoBama Minimum Wage raising issue aren't you? How about the Mandatory Health Care Fiasco?
I can only imagine you are serious about "Spreading the wealth"
LOL!
Go start your own business from nothing, build it up with your hard work into something substantial, then see how you feel when some Whining Little School Girl cries that its "not fair" that someone is making more money they he is!
Oh the humanity.
Again take control over your own actions instead of waiting for someone to rescue you and make it fair for you because you say so.
Geesh
Mike carry on pimping pink flea stained pooches and gushing hyperbole about your earnings and profitable new business. You may be fooling yourself but very few of us buy your schtick.
-
Many agencies are offering files "from 15 cents" to customers, but still pay out a regular subs royalty to their artists. This is possible because the average customer never maximises their download option. This has been the case since subscription sites started, so I really donīt understand what is new about that. It is an over 10 year old phenomenon.
Getty/istock are the ones that pay out 0.001 cent with their connect program, now offer 35 million expensive files for free and have just announced a subs program that is much lower than all the other sites.
They also kicked their exclusives badly, first they take away their option to send content to PP where they would have received 42-46 cents citing "we only want to offer our exclusive artists upstream options" but then they bring the subs to istock with a subs royalty that is even lower then what SS pays out for indie content.
And the exclusives never produced that content for the subs market. They have absolutely no choice.
So if you want to worry about low subs royalties, I would suggest we all return to the istock thread about subs. Because that is the place where everyones income will be dropping soon - for both exclusives and the indies.
If they aggressively market their subs program we are all guaranteed to lose money. And the exclusives will be hit hardest.
And they are doing this in response to???? Even the wall street SSTK analyst can see why this has been happening. If the analyst can ask hard questions of SSTK when we have more invested; then why do we have such a hard time recognizing market cause and effect in action?
-
I'm not sure where you got that insinuation. Hope it wasn't from me.
I think it was the general comments about relocating to the middle of nowhere from a few people. I didn't take it personal though. I thought it was funny. I guess I'm never sure what countries people are from and how they picture America. I just learned about American parties the other day and I'm still laughing about that.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-is-what-american-parties-look-like-around-the-world?bffb (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-is-what-american-parties-look-like-around-the-world?bffb)
I bet you are for the NoBama Minimum Wage raising issue aren't you? How about the Mandatory Health Care Fiasco?
I'd like free healthcare. Are you giving it out? I have to pay for my Obamacare.
-
I still don't see it. My commissions haven't been affected at all by all this stuff you're posting. In fact, SODs and ODs have increased for me, plus a few more ELs. So I can't agree with you. I have never seen a 16 cent commission from SS and I don't expect that I will. As far as office space goes, if I sold pots and pans, I wouldn't expect to have a say where Walmart's HQ was located. It means absolutely nothing to me unless or until they say they are lowering my $$ to pay for floorspace.
I just don't think you think of a supplier the same way I do. I have no connection except that they sell my stuff for them. If they do it badly, I'll go somewhere else. Until then, I'm good as is.
-
:)
-
I find this whole thing bizarre. I mean, it's not as if they have borrowed billions to pay themselves bonuses that they never earned and are now squeezing commissions to try to pay off interest on loans that they really can't afford, is it? That would be something to shout about. But they've just got some office space that their business model enables them to rent - and maybe it even makes them more money than it costs.
Commissions and office space seem to me to be unrelated issues.
-
:)
-
I find this whole thing bizarre. I mean, it's not as if they have borrowed billions to pay themselves bonuses that they never earned and are now squeezing commissions to try to pay off interest on loans that they really can't afford, is it? That would be something to shout about. But they've just got some office space that their business model enables them to rent - and maybe it even makes them more money than it costs.
Commissions and office space seem to me to be unrelated issues.
Agree.
As said earlier, there are a lot of things we can worry about, office space isnt one of them.
It has turned into nitpicking over everything SS does, and trying to turn it into a negative. It doesnt even help with/support the agenda some contributors have about addressing real Shutterstock issues.
-
"And they are doing this in response to???? Even the wall street SSTK analyst can see why this has been happening. If the analyst can ask hard questions of SSTK when we have more invested; then why do we have such a hard time recognizing market cause and effect in action?"
istock is not doing anything in response to SS. They could have grown Thinkstock to overtake SS if they had really wanted to.
35 million free files, no more 20% E+/P+ files you can choose yourself, no longer migrating istock exclusive content to getty, no RCīs to be paid out for subs, subs royalties that are much lower for exclusives than what indies are paid for at any other sub site...
What does any of that have to do with SS?? Or the rent SS pays?
The indie artists have always known that if they supply SS or any other agency that has subscriptions, they have to produce content for high volume sales.
But on istock the exclusive artist created content that was never designated for subs. However, they have no way of opting out of subs.
Do you really believe opting content that is not specifically created for the subs market will be a successful move? That this will turn the fate of istock around and return them to being the market leader?
All the independent artists and also all the regular Getty house artists make distinctions between content for high volume subs sites, and specialised content for midstock, macro or simply for higher prices. There is a reason we make that distinction.
And SS obviously offered the customers the most attractive selection from the content uploaded, they found the perfect balance between price and content and service the customers expect.
Getty is now throwing everything they have without any discrimination at the customer. They also accept any content to istock, no more quality control.
Again...what has SS to do with these decisions istock makes?? They are just the scapegoat they like to blame, while they try out new "exciting" ideas every 6 months.
But maybe they can convince investors and make a few more billions when Getty gets sold. But since they are probably not going to give us 20% of the sales price, we just have to focus on the agencies that show success in selling licenses - stocksy,offset,shutter stock,fotolia,pond5,symbiostock.
And 4 of those are not racing to the bottom - they are either pushing for higher prices or allow you to set your own prices. So inspite of customers being able to buy files for 15 cents at some agencies, the last 12 months have shown a very interesting shift in the market for higher prices for quality content.
If you believe your content should be sold for higher prices and not subs, just focus your energy on the agencies that offer that.
Have you applied to stocksy or Offset? These agencies can totally protect your content from subs if that is what you really want. No free image viewer for unregistered users either.
Or just push your symbiostock store. Hard work but all the rewards are yours.
But none of the above is affected by the rent paid for offices in New York by any agency. And who knows - Getty has offices around the globe in all the expensive cities - maybe their combined costs are even higher?
Maybe istock could afford to pay out RCīs for subs if they closed their office in London. Isnīt pond5 in New York as well? Maybe they could pay out 60% if they relocated....I just donīt see the connection...
-
"And they are doing this in response to???? Even the wall street SSTK analyst can see why this has been happening. If the analyst can ask hard questions of SSTK when we have more invested; then why do we have such a hard time recognizing market cause and effect in action?"
istock is not doing anything in response to SS.
He is talking about this question:
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies
When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out? And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match. Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6 (http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6)
-
Gbalex is with Shutterstock since 2004 or sometime in the early days, offering his images for sub prices, 10 years later it is Shutterstocks fault. As for the argument that there havent been any raises since then, shutterstock paid 20 cent per image, and nothing else. Thats an RPD of 20 cent. People these days report an RPD of 50-100 cent or more. Thats roughly 200-400 percent more.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135769 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135769)
Also:
Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23 (http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23)
2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml? (http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?)
2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $230
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131653 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131653)
-
You guys are doing a great job of coming up with reasons your hard work and investments should not be earning a fair return.
Congratulations you seem to be more than willing to give the sites a free pass to pay us less. Microstock is the only business model where you will find folks arguing against a raise. The microstock free pass phenomenon resembles a useful metaphor for a destructive type of human behaviour.
If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out.
However if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite happily. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death. An example of the smiling-boiled-frog phenomenon, is provided by our own business model. When we slipped into the microstock cauldron, the water was a perfect temperature, not too hot, not too cold. At that time we could actually make money from photos on our hard drives taken with inexpensive point and shoot cameras ~ sans studio equipment.
As the water in the cauldron slowly heated and microstock prices stayed stagnant or dropped; we frogs needed to pay for and produce far more content at much higher quality to compete. Our production expenses have gone up without commensurate compensation; yet we feel nothing but a pleasant warmth, and indeed in the beginning that's all there was to feel.
A long time has to pass before the water begins to be dangerously hot, and this is especially true for sites which offer carrots in the form of longer new contributor bumps. For fully half of our microstock history, the signs of distress were less noticeable. The period was a productive time for us and centered around creativity, personal income and community building. But gradually, imperceptibly, signs of distress began to appear, like tiny bubbles at the bottom of a pot.
If we take off our blinders we can perceive the signs of stress and see that the fire that was fervently burning under the cauldron. It's been burning there since the beginning, was burning after 10+ years and is burning today in exactly the same way it has been the last 8 years. Microstock was and is the great heating element for the crowd sourced revolution and unless we step up to protect our interests; the only winners will be the wall street robber barons.
So yes lets offer them more free passes and ignore the fact that the water is scalding hot & the fire is burning under the cauldron. Lets just mop our brows, grind our teeth, produce more at greater quality and cost to our bottom lines. Let us give up on our work and our passion and say there is nothing we can do about it "It Is All Good, Isn't It Great"
I have said more than my fair share on the topic. We have not had a raise in since 2008. Feel free to give the sites a pass and argue on about why we do not deserve fair compensation for our work. I will put a fork in it for now!
-
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.
-
meh, never mind
-
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.
-
PS, I think a raise from all the sites, including Shutterstock is waaaay overdue, and would never argue otherwise.
-
You say there hasnt been a raise, I say there were plenty.
Wooyay!?
-
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/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793 (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 (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 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821)
-
Oh, I see they learned about IP during the intervening time!
-
Nobody is forcing you to invest more in your production if you cannot make it work financially.
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.
Maybe going exclusive with istock or working directly with Getty House is a better choice for you. Have you considered that?
Nobody is against a raise, at any agency.But the 28 dollar or 120 dollar downloads are real money. So what is wrong with getting more of those? Or do you not get them?
What exacty do you want? 39 cents instead of 38? 40 cents? 42??
And what kind of new level do you want? 40 cents when you reach 50 000 dollars? 42 for 100 000? 60 cents for people who reach 1 million dollars??
At which level of subs payment will you be able to make it work again financially?
In a perfect world - what kind of sub payment do you want to receive??
-
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.
If a company completely moves out the area, I would tend to agree with you on the ethical level. My experience on that involves companies who stay in the area and expand or grow in more affordable location. They do not abandon ship but use their resources wisely moving forward as they become more successful. Obviously shutterstock should always have a presence in New York.
By the way this is shutterstock's Denver office. Poor guys I think shutterstock could spring for better digs, for this hard working crew.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfkvQWqCUAAfH9-.jpg)
-
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. :)
-
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. :)
They certainly will not give us a raise if we are perfectly happy to offer ourselves up as frog soup. As you can see I do not intend on letting them boil me and if more of us spoke out with our actions we would soon find that the micros would not be profitable without our investments. They could never afford to produce content themselves.
Frog soup anyone?
-
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. :)
They certainly will not give us a raise if we are perfectly happy to offer ourselves up as frog soup. As you can see I do not intend on letting them boil me and if more of us spoke out with our actions we would soon find that the micros would not be profitable without our investments. They could never afford to produce them themselves.
Frog soup anyone?
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.
And why would they try and produce their own images? They're resellers.
-
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.
Remember this?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-referral-program/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-referral-program/)
-
In a perfect world - what kind of sub payment do you want to receive??
Is none a legitimate answer? ;)
That's probably not going to happen though.
-
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.
I'm dying to find out if his false-exclusive or even any real-exclusive files if he has them, will be immune from iS subs.
BTW, I didn't notice before that his peopleimages site gives you, with every file purchased, "You will receive a receipt with a license, a guarantee that you're not paying too much, and our instant customer support is always there to help."
Well, that is unique in my experience, a 'guarantee that you're not paying too much'. The nearest I can think of is a price-match guarantee, but this doesn't claim to be that.
-
In a perfect world - what kind of sub payment do you want to receive??
Is none a legitimate answer? ;)
Yay, Bingo!
That's probably not going to happen though.
:'(
-
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?
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url])
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url])
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!
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url])
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?
-
As you can see I do not intend on letting them boil me
I don't see that at all. As far as I can see, you're just sitting in the water, complaining about how hot it is but you can't be bothered to get out of it. You're a frog who is happy to croak as long as you have a good whinge first to make you feel that you're morally superior to everybody else.
But maybe I'm being unfair, maybe you have closed your account at SS to demonstrate your refusal to have your work devalued to the level you agreed to sell it at in the past. And, as Cobalt asked, what is the right value for a piece of your work? 40c? $40? $40k?
Why not go and tell Jon what the value of your work should be? If he won't pay you that, then sack him and take your pictures away.
I suppose then you'll say you can't take them away because SS pays you more than any other agency.
-
snip
-
This thread says more about its contributors than shutterstock :o
-
This thread says more about its contributors than shutterstock :o
I don't know. I can see both sides. I had a customer this weekend contact me coming from one of the major agencies. They wanted a particular image I didn't have on that major site. It was a quick mod, so I didn't charge them for custom work just the price of the file at $20.
After the job was complete, they had 10 more files they wanted, but couldn't pay $20 a piece. I had most of the image themes they wanted already uploaded to my site, but they weren't on the major micros. I could upload them there and maybe get a couple bucks for them or I could wait and maybe they'll download one or two from my site for $20. Or maybe, I'll get nothing.
Either choice is OK, and I don't blame anyone for taking one or the other. But, there is a certain frustration knowing that certain elements of your business undermine other elements. I could say that the higher prices will never work, but I've seen it work on my own site and all the majors. At the same time, it is way too easy to get out competed by cheaper prices and huge advertising budgets. The frustrating part is realizing that they do it so they can compete against me (indirectly of course).
-
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?
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url])
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url])
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!
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url])
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 whats changed in the marketplace thats 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 were 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 havent 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 (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)
-
can you put it a little bigger and "reder"?
-
can you put it a little bigger and "reder"?
Still did not get through did it!
Entrée Quotidienne ~ Soupe de Grenouille
-
You still havenīt 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.
And the high quality content that you are "no longer" sending to SS - which agency are you sending it to? Gettyimages? Offset? Alamy? Stocksy?
-
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 ;D
-
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 ;D
The slow cook has addled your brain and now you are talking nonsense.
-
aaah and relocate all SS staff into a bungalow on the middle of nowhere, Jon can have one for his own, other all together ;D
Well, I could have a shed built in my backyard for him, but I don't think he'll be able to land his helicopter there. The HOA would probably disapprove of that.
-
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 ;D
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.
-
You still havenīt 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!
-
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? ;D
-
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? ;D
Saw that too.
"Oops we accidentally took away the referral program."
-
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?
([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg[/url])
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58793&highlight=#58793[/url])
Another example of image quality from one of microstocks most successful contributors at that time
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56402&highlight=#56402[/url])
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!
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54821&highlight=#54821[/url])
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 whats changed in the marketplace thats 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 were 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 havent 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.
[url]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[/url] ([url]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[/url])
I ignore nothing, I addressed your argument about quality and pricing, but you choose to ignore that.
You can shout and insult me, throw your toys out of the pram, but that doesnt change this.
Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23 (http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23)
2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml? (http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?)
2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
2011 October - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $230
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131653 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131653)
-
You still havenīt 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.
-
Of course! Bitching and moaning is easier.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfQIgOXFRN75DdreUQn-Mel--aaHqotadznIlUQMs3_sUnSEw7dQ)
-
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? ;D
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 were 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 havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.
-
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? ;D
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?
-
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 were 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 havent 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.
-
Maybe if you put it in red font size 20 he gets it >:(
-
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).
-
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.
-
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 donīt 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 doesīt 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 donīt 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 donīt 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??
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 were 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 havent 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
(http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/files/2700_1129844395_3_169.jpg)
Quality of 2014 subscription content sold to buyers @ 2005 subscription pricing.
http://tinyurl.com/mht9cr8 (http://tinyurl.com/mht9cr8)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
so what are your plans? continue to moan about it or leave it once for all?
-
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.
-
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. Havenīt 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??
Havenīt 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 donīt offer personalised macro services. Just like ebay doesnīt sift through the products being offered. They are not Sothebyīs or Christieīs.
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.
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 didnīt destroy istock. They did that completely to themselves. It was the management that came after Bruce that ruined the company. Precisely because SS didnīt 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 diidmīt 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 donīt really believe that, do you??
This kind of "letīs 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.
-
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, 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.
-
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. Havenīt 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??
Havenīt 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 donīt offer personalised macro services. Just like ebay doesnīt sift through the products being offered. They are not Sothebyīs or Christieīs.
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.
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 didnīt destroy istock. They did that completely to themselves. It was the management that came after Bruce that ruined the company. Precisely because SS didnīt 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 diidmīt 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 donīt really believe that, do you??
This kind of "letīs 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.
-
Are there any other opinions on topic about Jon's rise to be a world leader in stock image licensing?
-
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?
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
Oh the irony of an anonymous poster talking about courage. At least they are willing to put their names behind their opinions. Say what you will about SS, they are still by far better than most other MS agencies for contributors.
-
SS has always been in New York. And inspite of the bad air they are trememdously successful. So either the location didn't hurt their success or is giving them an advantage over a place like istock, that is located in a tiny city compared to NY.
I am sorry, I really don't understand the problem. Why should they relocate to another city and force 300 (or 400?) employees and their families to move?
For me staying where the company was founded but moving into an upscale location that will increase brand awareness makes a lot of sense.
But if you don't approve of SS or the way they run their business, just focus your energies on other marketplaces. istock and Fotolia or Dreamstime. pond5?
Did you check if their offices have low rents and are located in cities you personally prefer?
If for you this is an important aspect and will influence your decisions where you uplpad, fair enough.
But for me this seems like a very positive business choice.
well stated.
-
I dont care where they are located and if they have massage chairs and bonuses, and I dont care if they pay 25 or 38 cents per download.
But I care if they sell many, the whole point of microstock is quantity.
Sell Many!
So I suggest Shutterstock provide us with link to a landing place for picture hungry Facebookers, so we can distribute the link and help sell many more cheap photos.
-
I dont care where they are located and if they have massage chairs and bonuses, and I dont care if they pay 25 or 38 cents per download.
But I care if they sell many, the whole point of microstock is quantity.
Sell Many!
Are they succeeding with that? I used to get a lot more downloads back in the day. I can't complain though about less downloads now that pay more per download. It seems to result in more money for most contributors, but it definitely seems like less quantity (from my perspective).
-
Oh the irony of an anonymous poster talking about courage. At least they are willing to put their names behind their opinions. Say what you will about SS, they are still by far better than most other MS agencies for contributors.
As a nnon-anonymous poster, I have no problem with Gbalex's choice to be anonymous here. His posting history and knowledge of the industry establishes him as legitimate poster, whether or not you agree with what he's saying. I have agreed with some of his opinions and taken issue with others.
The issue of anonymity was VERY well covered last year, and everyone had their say. Evidently Tyler decided there was value to continuing to allow it. Therefore I am pretty surprised to see a long time contributing member to this forum called out for anonymity, much less getting 6 plus ones for it. Wasn't that issue already put to bed??
-
Oh the irony of an anonymous poster talking about courage. At least they are willing to put their names behind their opinions. Say what you will about SS, they are still by far better than most other MS agencies for contributors.
As a nnon-anonymous poster, I have no problem with Gbalex's choice to be anonymous here. His posting history and knowledge of the industry establishes him as legitimate poster, whether or not you agree with what he's saying. I have agreed with some of his opinions and taken issue with others.
The issue of anonymity was VERY well covered last year, and everyone had their say. Evidently Tyler decided there was value to continuing to allow it. Therefore I am pretty surprised to see a long time contributing member to this forum called out for anonymity, much less getting 6 plus ones for it. Wasn't that issue already put to bed??
And we lost a few key contributors at the hint of mandatory identity, too.
-
Oh the irony of an anonymous poster talking about courage. At least they are willing to put their names behind their opinions. Say what you will about SS, they are still by far better than most other MS agencies for contributors.
As a nnon-anonymous poster, I have no problem with Gbalex's choice to be anonymous here. His posting history and knowledge of the industry establishes him as legitimate poster, whether or not you agree with what he's saying. I have agreed with some of his opinions and taken issue with others.
The issue of anonymity was VERY well covered last year, and everyone had their say. Evidently Tyler decided there was value to continuing to allow it. Therefore I am pretty surprised to see a long time contributing member to this forum called out for anonymity, much less getting 6 plus ones for it. Wasn't that issue already put to bed??
I will stand behind my statement, especially when the question of courage comes up in this context, it is most definitely ironic. If you read their statement, they keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even though every point been repudiated, explained and defended ad nauseum by many people with at least as much knowledge of the industry and the agency in question. That's not courage, that's just repetition in the face of rational arguments.
And like you, I have agreed with him/her/them on other things. I understand the legitimate need for anonymity, but I also see the potential for it to be abused. Whether that's the case here, I have no idea and no way to tell. But I certainly will respect the opinions of someone who is willing to put their name behind their opinions more than those who don't or won't. And they shouldn't get a free pass to call someone else out for their opinions, when they do something (IMHO) that is very similar. I think it is valid to bring it up in this case.
-
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.
world class photographers ask world class prices, and they can do it because in one way or another they know how to get rich deals with rich clients, no matter if their photos su-ck big time as they often do.
i could write a long list of famous photographers doing sh-it and selling it like hotcakes, 99% is marketing and they know the score but it doesn't mean they're great photographers once you consider their clients are totally clueless and in the art world once you're famous even your far-ts are "artsy", it just means they managed to make a famous brand out of themselves, no matter how and why.
-
^^
'Twere ever thus.
Some punter brings along a painting, to Antiques Roadshow or somesuch, and there is a discussion as to whether it might be by Joe Famous. If it is, it's worth thousands.
If the exact same work is by Shady Nobody, it's worth the frame it's mounted in.
Nothing at all to do with the quality of the image/artefact.
-
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.
world class photographers ask world class prices, and they can do it because in one way or another they know how to get rich deals with rich clients, no matter if their photos su-ck big time as they often do.
i could write a long list of famous photographers doing sh-it and selling it like hotcakes, 99% is marketing and they know the score but it doesn't mean they're great photographers once you consider their clients are totally clueless and in the art world once you're famous even your far-ts are "artsy", it just means they managed to make a famous brand out of themselves, no matter how and why.
Agreed. But ain't it the same all over? I've worked with and for people who couldn't find their own arse even if it had a signpost sticking out of it. But they somehow became Vice President/Director of something or other. Main skills:
1. Able to talk at length on conference calls without actually saying anything useful.
2. Making successful results look like their own work
3. Making poor results look like someone else's fault
4. Making their own minor achievements look like a pivotal moment for the industry and for mankind as a whole
5. Ability to make a sentence like "engendering brand loyalty via a spectrum of marketing strategies based on real time cognizance of consumer buying imperatives" seem profound and ground breaking.
-
Well, I could point out some photographers whose work really is first class.
http://blog.ted.com/2013/05/01/sebastiao-salgado-a-gallery-of-spectacular-photographs/ (http://blog.ted.com/2013/05/01/sebastiao-salgado-a-gallery-of-spectacular-photographs/)
http://pdngallery.com/legends/bailey/gallery.shtml (http://pdngallery.com/legends/bailey/gallery.shtml)
http://stevemccurry.com/galleries (http://stevemccurry.com/galleries)
But there are also those who managed to make friends with the right people and do a good self-promotion job.
-
Agreed. But ain't it the same all over? I've worked with and for people who couldn't find their own arse even if it had a signpost sticking out of it. But they somehow became Vice President/Director of something or other. Main skills:
1. Able to talk at length on conference calls without actually saying anything useful.
2. Making successful results look like their own work
3. Making poor results look like someone else's fault
4. Making their own minor achievements look like a pivotal moment for the industry and for mankind as a whole
5. Ability to make a sentence like "engendering brand loyalty via a spectrum of marketing strategies based on real time cognizance of consumer buying imperatives" seem profound and ground breaking.
ROFL. Absolutely brilliant!