pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Truth about microstock revealed Shutterstocks IPO  (Read 15112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 03, 2012, 07:43 »
0


Microbius

« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2012, 08:21 »
0
He is spot on, no one makes a living at micro, no one should be contributing to it. If you do you are evil and hate art. Everyone stop contributing to the "cancer" that is microstock.
Thank you, that is all.

« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2012, 08:27 »
0
He is spot on, no one makes a living at micro, no one should be contributing to it. If you do you are evil and hate art. Everyone stop contributing to the "cancer" that is microstock.
Thank you, that is all.

but in the end he tell us to write a letter to SS asking for better pricing etc..

wut

« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2012, 08:32 »
0
What does he mean by that: "but there are affordable ways to do this.   Several off the shelf stock photo website software packages exist ranging from free to a few hundred dollars.  Many more photographers are starting to take advantage of such solutions."

rubyroo

« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2012, 08:51 »
0
Anyone around here "faceless and mute"?

Must be hard to photograph without a face... gee we're so talented.

« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2012, 08:58 »
0
...dont give up after a paragraph or two..
I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month.  Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2012, 10:09 »
0
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2012, 10:10 »
0
...dont give up after a paragraph or two..
I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month.  Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2012, 10:12 »
0
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Well, if they said that in the article, then they (and you) did get that part right.

« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2012, 10:17 »
0
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Well, if they said that in the article, then they (and you) did get that part right.

I might have cherry picked a bit to get that.  ;)

Although, it did seem like it was mostly complaining about subs which would make sense to single out SS.

wut

« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2012, 10:20 »
0
I sure wouldn't complain if subs prices would go up, since they're a steal and out commissions as well. Former will happen sooner or later, the latter probably never (I mean not more than the price increase will increase our royalties, for instance prices and royalties up by 20%).

« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2012, 10:23 »
0
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

Well, if they said that in the article, then they (and you) did get that part right.

I might have cherry picked a bit to get that.  ;)

Although, it did seem like it was mostly complaining about subs which would make sense to single out SS.

Understood.  :)

« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2012, 10:31 »
0
I'm not really sure why Shutterstock was singled out, and some of the "facts" seem more like assumptions. That said, I can't say I disagree with the basic premise. We are underrepresented and underpaid at most agencies, and I do think there are inherent flaws in the micro model.

I agree and seriously think they could come up with a better deal but after so many crap from all agencies why would they?

June 0.52$
All time 0.49$ (very few EL)

1.83$ left to last level ;D

« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2012, 11:44 »
0
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download ;)

« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2012, 13:18 »
0
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download ;)

No no - you got it all wrong!!

I've had 11 cents and I know others have had 9 cents. 19 cents is what we're all dreaming of :)

« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2012, 13:20 »
0
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download ;)

You mean $.07 don't you?  ;)

People always do seem to grab the numbers that appear to make their points though. It would be nice if we had and people used more meaningful statistics - like the average or mean or something.

« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2012, 13:46 »
0
I wonder why they always quote the lowest amount we ever get. They never seem to mention the average $5 (at SS) OD download, or the $16.80 other downloads or the ELs. Last month I made about $.70 per download. With a stagnant port and no effort. Think what I could do if I really tried.

Same reason everyone at IS makes $.19 a download ;)

You mean $.07 don't you?  ;)

People always do seem to grab the numbers that appear to make their points though. It would be nice if we had and people used more meaningful statistics - like the average or mean or something.

the serious ones do, not this case for sure


rubyroo

« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2012, 13:50 »
0
19 cents is what we're all dreaming of :)

 :D

« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2012, 13:56 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2012, 14:00 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 14:01 by cclapper »

« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2012, 14:00 »
0
You mean $.07 don't you?  ;)

People always do seem to grab the numbers that appear to make their points though. It would be nice if we had and people used more meaningful statistics - like the average or mean or something.

I don't have concrete numbers, but I would guess most independents average somewhere between $.50 and $2 per sale which is about 25%-30% of the actual sale price.

With an average of $1 at 30% royalty.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 14:06 by cthoman »

« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2012, 14:20 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
or maybe the blogger is actually luissantos84  :o :o :o :o :o

Just kidding.

Well traffic is useless if you cannot convert it into business.

This way I learned to stay away from another blogger. Big deal.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2012, 14:32 »
0
People are funny. There are more threads on this forum complaining about low commissions and poor treatment by agencies than any other subject and yet when someone outside this little group says the same thing, everyone jumps to defend the agency and call the author pathetic.

My sales to revenue ratio on Shutterstock last month was .397 cents per download. So in some cases his figures are not far off. But forget the stats and consider his point. All he's saying is that contributors that submit to microstock deserve more than they get.

That's all. If you believe you get paid fairly for the quality of your work and the time you put in. And you think that the agencies deserve to take the lion's share for representing you, then maybe the author is a _________ (nasty word).

« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2012, 14:37 »
0
I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2012, 15:20 »
0
People are funny. There are more threads on this forum complaining about low commissions and poor treatment by agencies than any other subject and yet when someone outside this little group says the same thing, everyone jumps to defend the agency and call the author pathetic.

My sales to revenue ratio on Shutterstock last month was .397 cents per download. So in some cases his figures are not far off. But forget the stats and consider his point. All he's saying is that contributors that submit to microstock deserve more than they get.

That's all. If you believe you get paid fairly for the quality of your work and the time you put in. And you think that the agencies deserve to take the lion's share for representing you, then maybe the author is a _________ (nasty word).
I presume you're addressing my statement from before.

In all fairness I ask you to name one agency that does everything right. Obviously we are bitching about changes in the microstock industry as 99% are to the disadvantage of the contributor but please keep in mind that no macro agency has improved contributor royalties either.

All stock shooters sit in the same boat - getting lower commissions.

To blame the micros for that is just naive.

His reasoning is beyond my comprehension.

He doesn't appear to be talking from experience (unless his experience with the micros is rather poor - hence his portfolio must suck).

Pulling numbers out of the air like that is like claiming that every Getty shooter is getting only $5 through distributor sales.

As with any business, the vast majority won't be in it for long but the ones who get the hang of it can make a living.

It's pretty easy, he should just shut up if he doesn't know what he is talking about.

That's why I said it's pathetic. Throwing out claims with no facts to base them on is quite unprofessional.

« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2012, 15:26 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

will do it next time

« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2012, 15:35 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

will do it next time

No, no, no. Please keep posting the links __ it might help Mr Spout climb the Google rankings too. I'm grateful to him for promulgating that microstock as a whole, and SS in particular, is not worth the time, effort or expense of any half-decent photographer. Good.


« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2012, 16:26 »
0
In all fairness I ask you to name one agency that does everything right. Obviously we are bitching about changes in the microstock industry as 99% are to the disadvantage of the contributor but please keep in mind that no macro agency has improved contributor royalties either.

I'm pretty happy with Clipartof and my own site, MyStockVectors. If I had a few more sites like them, I would probably leave all the major micros.

« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2012, 18:28 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.

will do it next time

No, no, no. Please keep posting the links __ it might help Mr Spout climb the Google rankings too. I'm grateful to him for promulgating that microstock as a whole, and SS in particular, is not worth the time, effort or expense of any half-decent photographer. Good.

^^^Exactamundo^^^

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2012, 18:34 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2012, 18:47 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

Let them file a DMCA just like we all have to do. Wouldn't that fall under the same bull$hit fair use clause as the bloggers hide behind?  ;)

Quote
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

We certainly are criticizing and commenting.

RacePhoto

« Reply #31 on: July 04, 2012, 01:05 »
0
...dont give up after a paragraph or two..
I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month.  Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

I averaged 29 cents a download on SS last month. (and I'm happy)

Not everyone has 2000 - 4000 images and not everyone is part of the top 5% of microstock, like many of the people here are.

While the blog may be looking at the dark side, and ignoring the success of some, remember that 50% of the people who get accepted (ignore the thousands who never pass that test) Never Reach Payout! It's a tough business, there's no free lunch.

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2012, 05:20 »
0
I averaged 29 cents a download on SS last month. (and I'm happy)

Not everyone has 2000 - 4000 images and not everyone is part of the top 5% of microstock, like many of the people here are.

While the blog may be looking at the dark side, and ignoring the success of some, remember that 50% of the people who get accepted (ignore the thousands who never pass that test) Never Reach Payout! It's a tough business, there's no free lunch.

x2 With a bit more monthly average  ;D

And each day I believe that only those 5% ( with few exceptions ) are entitled to tell anything ( and anywhere ) about any matter in the microstock industry. 

Not mean that I agree with everything he says, but after reading the entire text, did not see nothing new that I have not already seen written by the big "guys".

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2012, 06:47 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

Let them file a DMCA just like we all have to do. Wouldn't that fall under the same bull$hit fair use clause as the bloggers hide behind?  ;)

Quote
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

We certainly are criticizing and commenting.
Oh yes, it's just that any time I mention that clause, people here say it doesn't apply.

« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2012, 07:15 »
0
What a pathetic attempt to drive traffic to his site...

looks like it's working. what would be nice is if the OP, instead of posting the link, actually copied the text and posted it here. that way, the blogger gets one hit instead many, just from this forum alone.
Copyright issues?

Let them file a DMCA just like we all have to do. Wouldn't that fall under the same bull$hit fair use clause as the bloggers hide behind?  ;)

Quote
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

We certainly are criticizing and commenting.
Oh yes, it's just that any time I mention that clause, people here say it doesn't apply.

I agree with ShadySue .. you could post one paragraph or something as a quote (with link back to the original author) but you couldn't post the entire article.

« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2012, 07:56 »
0
I agree with ShadySue .. you could post one paragraph or something as a quote (with link back to the original author) but you couldn't post the entire article.

That sounds good. Post as a quote, cite the source, add a link. That way if people want to contribute to the bloggers income, they can. For those of us who don't, we can still participate in the conversation.  :) Or not. Whatever.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 08:09 by cclapper »

Milinz

« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2012, 19:39 »
0
I averaged 29 cents a download on SS last month. (and I'm happy)

Not everyone has 2000 - 4000 images and not everyone is part of the top 5% of microstock, like many of the people here are.

While the blog may be looking at the dark side, and ignoring the success of some, remember that 50% of the people who get accepted (ignore the thousands who never pass that test) Never Reach Payout! It's a tough business, there's no free lunch.

x2 With a bit more monthly average  ;D

And each day I believe that only those 5% ( with few exceptions ) are entitled to tell anything ( and anywhere ) about any matter in the microstock industry. 

Not mean that I agree with everything he says, but after reading the entire text, did not see nothing new that I have not already seen written by the big "guys".

Only the top 5% can write and the rest of the people are censored. Do you work for Pravda or the thought police? Only people who are successful can promote their minority opinion.


Batman

« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2012, 19:55 »
0
...dont give up after a paragraph or two..
I gave up reading after this, as it's totally wrong. "Shutterstock contributors get somewhere between 20 cents and 38 cents when an image is licensed."
My average was $0.67 last month.  Seems like a waste of time reading it if they can't get that right.

Many of his facts are right most of his conclusions are wrong. He's bitter and biased, same old story of someone who wants microstock to fail so he can have things the way they were. It's not going to ever return to the old ways. The blog is a repeat of microstock critics that we've all read for 5 years. Waste of time.

« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2012, 10:31 »
0
dont remember but I guess this article wasnt published in MSG, take a look, quite interesting, comments also

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/16/shutterstocks-ipo-plans/

« Reply #39 on: August 20, 2012, 10:54 »
0
dont remember but I guess this article wasnt published in MSG, take a look, quite interesting, comments also

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/16/shutterstocks-ipo-plans/


Those numbers don't seem to add up. They seem to suggest they are paying about 33% ($58 mil of $178 mil). 33% of $3 would be about $1 per sale. That seems way too high (at least compared to what I get). Maybe, affiliates account for the extra, but that doesn't seem to make sense either.

« Reply #40 on: August 20, 2012, 12:12 »
0
I'm unsure what truths he revealed. Basically he read the subscription prices off the SS website, and still managed to flub the facts. The juiciest tidbit of info to come out since the books were opened is that SS pays out a ridiculously low percentage to its contributors. That in itself could have been the basis for an entire article.

I trusted Jon/SS for a long time. But I just don't see how they are any different than IS now that the facts are out. Both are content to keep the vast majority of the profits for themselves and dare contributors to go elsewhere and do better. In fact, I give IS more credit because they didn't lie to us for years about our commission percentage. They just gave us a terrible deal upfront and said, "take it or leave it."

velocicarpo

« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2012, 12:36 »
0
I'm unsure what truths he revealed. Basically he read the subscription prices off the SS website, and still managed to flub the facts. The juiciest tidbit of info to come out since the books were opened is that SS pays out a ridiculously low percentage to its contributors. That in itself could have been the basis for an entire article.

I trusted Jon/SS for a long time. But I just don't see how they are any different than IS now that the facts are out. Both are content to keep the vast majority of the profits for themselves and dare contributors to go elsewhere and do better. In fact, I give IS more credit because they didn't lie to us for years about our commission percentage. They just gave us a terrible deal upfront and said, "take it or leave it."

Exactly what I think / feel....

Lagereek

« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2012, 12:37 »
0
YAWN! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


The only thing I do agree on is that, quality contributors will eventually leave the micro business, yes, I am sure of this, micro on the whole is unsustainable, sadly.
I am actually on my way to quit, one for sure, perhaps even two, of the big four micros, its hopeless and getting worse.

The actual con lies in their messing around, search-changes, to suit only them, not the contributors, it ruins hundereds of ports over a night and when it doesnt work, they still dont revert back to its original.

Im afraid, this guy is always writing negativities but unfortuantely some of it is true, not so much regarding SS but most of the others fall into this categoty.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 13:02 by Lagereek »

Ed

« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2012, 13:15 »
0
I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Mark Stout was with the micros since the early beginnings.  He was a contributor to iStock, Shutterstock (portfolio removed about a year ago), Dreamstime, etc., etc.  I took notice of his portfolio a few years ago (mostly because he is here in Denver - there are a few people here in Denver that I've taken notice of).  His micro portfolio was very good...then he started pulling his best images until he finally left micro altogether.  He is currently selling through his own site.  I exchanged messages with him on Facebook a couple of months ago and he is currently only selling RM and only selling through his own website.  He stated he is doing well with this approach (earning more than he was on the micros).

He did not have trouble getting into Shutterstock or iStock.  If I remember correctly, very early on, he had over 2,000 images on Shutterstock (back in 2007 or so) and he had a very large portfolio on iStock and Dreamstime as well.  I don't remember if he was with Fotolio or any of the other agencies.

Lagereek

« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2012, 00:19 »
0
I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Mark Stout was with the micros since the early beginnings.  He was a contributor to iStock, Shutterstock (portfolio removed about a year ago), Dreamstime, etc., etc.  I took notice of his portfolio a few years ago (mostly because he is here in Denver - there are a few people here in Denver that I've taken notice of).  His micro portfolio was very good...then he started pulling his best images until he finally left micro altogether.  He is currently selling through his own site.  I exchanged messages with him on Facebook a couple of months ago and he is currently only selling RM and only selling through his own website.  He stated he is doing well with this approach (earning more than he was on the micros).

He did not have trouble getting into Shutterstock or iStock.  If I remember correctly, very early on, he had over 2,000 images on Shutterstock (back in 2007 or so) and he had a very large portfolio on iStock and Dreamstime as well.  I don't remember if he was with Fotolio or any of the other agencies.

Yeah I think I remember him, so what made him turn so viciously against it all?

Ed

« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2012, 17:16 »
0
I took a brief look at Mark Stout's photographs. It seems that he had problems with initial application to iStock and Shutterstock :-)
It's just another of many articles of below-average photographer who's looking for someone to blame for his own lack of success.

Mark Stout was with the micros since the early beginnings.  He was a contributor to iStock, Shutterstock (portfolio removed about a year ago), Dreamstime, etc., etc.  I took notice of his portfolio a few years ago (mostly because he is here in Denver - there are a few people here in Denver that I've taken notice of).  His micro portfolio was very good...then he started pulling his best images until he finally left micro altogether.  He is currently selling through his own site.  I exchanged messages with him on Facebook a couple of months ago and he is currently only selling RM and only selling through his own website.  He stated he is doing well with this approach (earning more than he was on the micros).

He did not have trouble getting into Shutterstock or iStock.  If I remember correctly, very early on, he had over 2,000 images on Shutterstock (back in 2007 or so) and he had a very large portfolio on iStock and Dreamstime as well.  I don't remember if he was with Fotolio or any of the other agencies.

Yeah I think I remember him, so what made him turn so viciously against it all?

My understanding is the poor compensation, royalty cuts with agencies, the way contributors are treated, etc.  Nothing you don't hear people complaining about on this forum all the time  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3100 Views
Last post February 06, 2009, 17:36
by tan510jomast
29 Replies
9238 Views
Last post February 03, 2014, 22:06
by ArenaCreative
7 Replies
4188 Views
Last post May 24, 2015, 17:24
by dpimborough
This I believe is truth

Started by Rinderart « 1 2 3  All » Photography Equipment

51 Replies
21366 Views
Last post October 19, 2016, 11:00
by douglas
13 Replies
4298 Views
Last post June 14, 2020, 19:34
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle