Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer) (Read 37504 times)

gbalex · « **Reply #50 on:** March 20, 2014, 21:45 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 18:02

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

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

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

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."

farbled · « **Reply #51 on:** March 20, 2014, 22:19 »

Quote from: robhainer on March 20, 2014, 21:17

Quote from: farbled on March 20, 2014, 19:29
I don't understand the big deal. If a company I supply chooses to be in a specific place, who cares? I don't own it, work for it, have a say in it, care who works there, what they're paid, what they eat, or anything else.

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

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

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

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #52 on:** March 20, 2014, 22:22 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 20, 2014, 18:02

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

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

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.

robhainer · « **Reply #53 on:** March 20, 2014, 22:31 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #54 on:** March 20, 2014, 22:32 »

Quote from: robhainer on March 20, 2014, 21:17

Quote from: farbled on March 20, 2014, 19:29
I don't understand the big deal. If a company I supply chooses to be in a specific place, who cares? I don't own it, work for it, have a say in it, care who works there, what they're paid, what they eat, or anything else.

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

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

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

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #55 on:** March 20, 2014, 22:36 »

farbled · « **Reply #56 on:** March 20, 2014, 22:36 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 20, 2014, 22:36

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.

VB inc · « **Reply #57 on:** March 21, 2014, 00:24 »

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...

stocked · « **Reply #58 on:** March 21, 2014, 04:06 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 20, 2014, 05:38

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.

Red Dove · « **Reply #59 on:** March 21, 2014, 06:02 »

Quote from: stocked on March 21, 2014, 04:06

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 20, 2014, 05:38

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #60 on:** March 21, 2014, 07:53 »

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #61 on:** March 21, 2014, 14:07 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 21:45

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.)

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 21:45

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.

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 21:45

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.

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 21:45

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

But not everyone is seeing less in royalties.

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 21:45

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.

gbalex · « **Reply #62 on:** March 21, 2014, 16:28 »

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

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

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 nation’s 85 largest metro areas, with a miniscule 6.1 engineers per 1,000 workers, one seventh the concentration in the Valley.

cthoman · « **Reply #63 on:** March 21, 2014, 17:13 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 21, 2014, 16:28

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

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

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 nation’s 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird

gbalex · « **Reply #64 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:40 »

Quote from: cthoman on March 21, 2014, 17:13

Quote from: gbalex on March 21, 2014, 16:28
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

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

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 nation’s 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird

LOL Burning Flipside would never be the same

cobalt · « **Reply #65 on:** March 22, 2014, 15:28 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 20, 2014, 21:45

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 don´t 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.

I´d say they know what they are doing.

cthoman · « **Reply #66 on:** March 22, 2014, 16:11 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 22, 2014, 15:28

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.

gbalex · « **Reply #67 on:** March 22, 2014, 23:44 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 22, 2014, 15:28

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

Topographical Map Of The U.S. Based On Revenues Of Fortune 500 Companies

Topographical map of United States Population Density

cobalt · « **Reply #68 on:** March 23, 2014, 02:52 »

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.

roede-orm · « **Reply #69 on:** March 23, 2014, 03:53 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 22, 2014, 15:28

Who wants to live in a boring suburb or country town if you can be in a vibrant metropolis??

Me

I would prefer the middle of nowhere instead of each vibrant city

cobalt · « **Reply #70 on:** March 23, 2014, 04:00 »

Everyone is different. I enjoy visiting the countryside, but I would never want to live there. I am a city person. Stadtmensch

Ron · « **Reply #71 on:** March 23, 2014, 04:25 »

I understand a lot of discussion about Shutterstock's actions, but pissing and moaning about a choice of office is just envy.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #72 on:** March 23, 2014, 05:07 »

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.

Red Dove · « **Reply #73 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:33 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #74 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:55 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer) (Read 37504 times)

gbalex

farbled

lisafx

robhainer

lisafx

tickstock

farbled

VB inc

stocked

Red Dove

Mantis

Shelma1

gbalex

cthoman

gbalex

cobalt

cthoman

gbalex

cobalt

roede-orm

cobalt

Ron

Hobostocker

Red Dove

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors