MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Success Lessons from a Marketplace Master (Jon Oringer)  (Read 36986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #75 on: March 23, 2014, 06:57 »
+2
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.


« Reply #76 on: March 23, 2014, 07:12 »
+4
^^You're right. This is a waste of my time.

« Reply #77 on: March 23, 2014, 09:13 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 09:20 by gbalex »

Ron

« Reply #78 on: March 23, 2014, 09:34 »
+7
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.

« Reply #79 on: March 23, 2014, 09:45 »
0
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.

Ron

« Reply #80 on: March 23, 2014, 09:56 »
+2
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.

« Reply #81 on: March 23, 2014, 10:10 »
+4


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, isnt 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 havent received, the lowest was always 25 or now 33 cents).

Ron

« Reply #82 on: March 23, 2014, 10:15 »
+1
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.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #83 on: March 23, 2014, 10:24 »
+2
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 16 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.

« Reply #84 on: March 23, 2014, 10:34 »
+2
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.

« Reply #85 on: March 23, 2014, 11:10 »
+3
 :)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 07:01 by mike ledray »

« Reply #86 on: March 23, 2014, 11:32 »
+3
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.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #87 on: March 23, 2014, 12:11 »
+4
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.

« Reply #88 on: March 23, 2014, 13:07 »
+3
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.

lisafx

« Reply #89 on: March 23, 2014, 13:38 »
+4
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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 13:49 by lisafx »

« Reply #90 on: March 23, 2014, 13:55 »
-1
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

farbled

« Reply #91 on: March 23, 2014, 14:09 »
+1
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.


« Reply #92 on: March 23, 2014, 14:11 »
-1
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 16 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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 14:14 by gbalex »

« Reply #93 on: March 23, 2014, 14:11 »
0
 :)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 07:01 by mike ledray »

farbled

« Reply #94 on: March 23, 2014, 14:15 »
+3
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).

« Reply #95 on: March 23, 2014, 14:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #96 on: March 23, 2014, 14:31 »
+2
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.  :)

« Reply #97 on: March 23, 2014, 14:33 »
-2
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?

lisafx

« Reply #98 on: March 23, 2014, 14:36 »
+8
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...?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #99 on: March 23, 2014, 14:39 »
+2
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
7010 Views
Last post December 14, 2007, 08:06
by a.k.a.-tom
8 Replies
5923 Views
Last post June 03, 2009, 10:29
by luceluceluce
7 Replies
17069 Views
Last post February 27, 2010, 05:11
by photoshow
56 Replies
30257 Views
Last post April 19, 2015, 16:56
by KnowYourOnions
0 Replies
3688 Views
Last post September 19, 2018, 03:12
by Yay Images Billionaire

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors