MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: panicAttack on June 24, 2015, 10:02
-
Greetings
This is one of those "what if" questions but I just wanted to know.
If ShutterStock offered exclusivity (seeing what is happening in stock industry at this time with AdobeStock) in this terms:
subscription download 50c, on demand 5$, enhanched 50$ and 50% from single and others downloads and no other "better search" placement, maybe new category like "newest, popular, relevant and exclusive".
Will anyone accept that? Maybe to explain why not or why would you?
My opinion... calculating my last month now...
nope... without increasing sales volume I dont think I would go exclusive. What about you?
Thanks
-
I wouldn't because I get $1.50 per sub and 9 or 10 dollars per regular dl already as an iStock exclusive along with higher sales at Getty. I do think SS will need to do something to differentiate itself from Adobe, maybe a premium (think Vetta) offering of exclusive images. They seem to be going that way with the PMC deal so it might not be too far fetched.
-
I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket and I make more money uploading to multiple sites than I could with those conditions.
-
I like exclusive images, if they give me the option and the offer is good, I´ll decide on a theme and send it to them.
-
Ss has said many many times that they don't want to do exclusivity. Image exclusivity is easier than artist exclusivity (iStock does only the latter, DT and FT do both)
I was an iStock exclusive for a while (2008-2011) and it's not a trivial thing to leave and build things back up again. Given the rise and fall of empires, I don't think I'd ever do artist exclusive again - and given the agency behavior over the last couple of years, I don't trust any of them to have contributor interests in their sights.
Image exclusivity is something I'd consider depending on the agency (and the market they sell to) and the terms. If the agency can't move the exclusive items, you have higher theoretical earnings and zero actual cash.
-
I wouldn't because I get $1.50 per sub and 9 or 10 dollars per regular dl already as an iStock exclusive along with higher sales at Getty. I do think SS will need to do something to differentiate itself from Adobe, maybe a premium (think Vetta) offering of exclusive images. They seem to be going that way with the PMC deal so it might not be too far fetched.
I know you are "the Istock guy" (not meaning you work for them besides being a contributor), but can you say honestly do you see less sales in last year or two? I dont know if you have your portfolio visible, or share your statistic (earnings/image numbers).
-
I wouldn't because I get $1.50 per sub and 9 or 10 dollars per regular dl already as an iStock exclusive along with higher sales at Getty. I do think SS will need to do something to differentiate itself from Adobe, maybe a premium (think Vetta) offering of exclusive images. They seem to be going that way with the PMC deal so it might not be too far fetched.
I know you are "the Istock guy" (not meaning you work for them besides being a contributor), but can you say honestly do you see less sales in last year or two? I dont know if you have your portfolio visible, or share your statistic (earnings/image numbers).
Sales have dropped some but not nearly enough to change what I'm doing. There are other reasons though, the royalty rate is higher than all the other big sites, the pricing of my images is higher than all the sites, subs pay a much more reasonable rate, etc... I also expect SS to lower royalties (or introduce some new program or change terms which will have the same effect) to compete with Adobe.
-
Ss has said many many times that they don't want to do exclusivity.
Now are different times. Everything changes, the one who don't change usually end up badly. They also said that referral earning is lifetime but it's not anymore.
-
I also expect SS to lower royalties (or introduce some new program or change terms which will have the same effect) to compete with Adobe.
Thank you, but I really hope you are wrong with this :D
-
I also expect SS to lower royalties (or introduce some new program or change terms which will have the same effect) to compete with Adobe.
Thank you, but I really hope you are wrong with this :D
I think that will be the consequence of Adobe's success. Adobe is selling files for a maximum of $10 and not even offering ELs on the site. Subs royalties are also on the whole lower. I think you'll see On Demand pricing come down and who knows maybe a Bigstock style subs program next? If they choose to differentiate themselves by offering an exclusive program then maybe they don't need to do that but they've consistently said they don't want to so what's left is matching and beating prices.
-
I would probably go exclusive, but I don't think they're willing to offer higher royalties just yet. They are 70% of my revenue and growing so I think it would be worth it. If enough contributors went exclusive, other agencies would be seriously affected and customers would also move to SS.
-
Ss has said many many times that they don't want to do exclusivity. Image exclusivity is easier than artist exclusivity (iStock does only the latter, DT and FT do both)
I was an iStock exclusive for a while (2008-2011) and it's not a trivial thing to leave and build things back up again. Given the rise and fall of empires, I don't think I'd ever do artist exclusive again - and given the agency behavior over the last couple of years, I don't trust any of them to have contributor interests in their sights.
Image exclusivity is something I'd consider depending on the agency (and the market they sell to) and the terms. If the agency can't move the exclusive items, you have higher theoretical earnings and zero actual cash.
Yeah, the market seems way too volatile to go exclusive. It would be nice to trust one company to provide a stable income, but I don't see any that are even close to that (for me, anyway).
-
They'd have to double royalties for me to even glance at it, which will never happen. And since we all agreed to their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month (backlash after the DPC fiasco), it would be nearly impossible to go non-exclusive again later.
-
their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month
It's actually 10% in 90 days :(
-
Greetings
This is one of those "what if" questions but I just wanted to know.
If ShutterStock offered exclusivity (seeing what is happening in stock industry at this time with AdobeStock) in this terms:
subscription download 50c, on demand 5$, enhanched 50$ and 50% from single and others downloads and no other "better search" placement, maybe new category like "newest, popular, relevant and exclusive".
Will anyone accept that? Maybe to explain why not or why would you?
My opinion... calculating my last month now...
nope... without increasing sales volume I dont think I would go exclusive. What about you?
Thanks
For the time being, SS accounts for 45% of my total. So your "offer" is not good enough. I would need $0.84/sub, $6.33/ODD, $62/EL ... etc while they keep their current sales volume.
-
of course only image exclusivity. everything else makes no sense in this market.
-
I also expect SS to lower royalties (or introduce some new program or change terms which will have the same effect) to compete with Adobe.
Ok, it just happened, I got the e-mail. They decreased the price of 4k video from 299$ to 199$.
-
I also expect SS to lower royalties (or introduce some new program or change terms which will have the same effect) to compete with Adobe.
Ok, it just happened, I got the e-mail. They decreased the price of 4k video from 299$ to 199$.
Yeah got the email too but that probably isn't because of Adobe, maybe it's in anticipation of video coming to Adobe? If we see a change in On Demand pricing and Subscription royalties that will be a direct result of Adobe.
-
their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month
It's actually 10% in 90 days :(
are you talking about fotolia?
-
All the agencies should offer image exclusivity. At the moment, with everything everywhere pretty much they only compete on price. There would be more incentive to offer us better rates too.
-
Never sold 4k, maybe now I will. no use having high prices without sales.
They'll still have extended licenses to top it up.
-
They'd have to double royalties for me to even glance at it, which will never happen. And since we all agreed to their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month (backlash after the DPC fiasco), it would be nearly impossible to go non-exclusive again later.
Even if SS doubled my earning there, it would still be 1/3 less than I make now as indie.
-
most of my pictures uploaded after Fotolia's Dollar Club and IS Google deals are exclusive in SS. But I would never work exclusively as an artist
-
They'd have to double royalties for me to even glance at it, which will never happen. And since we all agreed to their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month (backlash after the DPC fiasco), it would be nearly impossible to go non-exclusive again later.
With my port they would have to at least quadruple my SS sales for me to have a $200-$500 a month gain. I would not go exclusive just to break even, there would have to be an advantage for me. You are right about going exclusive then back to non exclusive and so is Jo Ann. In my opinion, lots of industry flux going on and I'd rather play the wait and see game at this time.
-
Considering my SS income is 75% this month, 79% last month and close to 60% the rest of the year, I would jump all over that offer. Well - depending on notice period, if it is a year NOPE, but 30 days would be fine with me!
-
They'd have to double royalties for me to even glance at it, which will never happen. And since we all agreed to their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month (backlash after the DPC fiasco), it would be nearly impossible to go non-exclusive again later.
With my port they would have to at least quadruple my SS sales for me to have a $200-$500 a month gain. I would not go exclusive just to break even, there would have to be an advantage for me. You are right about going exclusive then back to non exclusive and so is Jo Ann. In my opinion, lots of industry flux going on and I'd rather play the wait and see game at this time.
I guess they'd also have to add boosting in search results, like iStock, plus inclusion in Premier Select and Offset. And get rid of that agreement about removing images, whcih makes it literally impossible for you to leave. Once you're down to 9 images you can no longer remove 10% of your portfolio. Even then I'd be really, really hesitant.
-
I would probably go exclusive, but I don't think they're willing to offer higher royalties just yet. They are 70% of my revenue and growing so I think it would be worth it. If enough contributors went exclusive, other agencies would be seriously affected and customers would also move to SS.
Do you honestly think a near-monopoly - with any company - would be good for contributors?
-
their relatively new terms that allow us to only remove 10% of our portfolio per month
It's actually 10% in 90 days :(
are you talking about fotolia?
no, shutterstock.
-
I guess they'd also have to add boosting in search results, like iStock, plus inclusion in Premier Select and Offset. And get rid of that agreement about removing images, whcih makes it literally impossible for you to leave. Once you're down to 9 images you can no longer remove 10% of your portfolio. Even then I'd be really, really hesitant.
you can. it's either 10% or 100 images, whichever is greater
-
If it was just a friendly, incentive driven offer to submit future content exclusively then no, I don't think I would accept. I've always been one to hedge my bets and I like the idea of multiple agencies. However, if SS suddenly changed their long standing policy and insisted that new content be submitted exclusively then I literally could not afford to refuse. I don't think it's necessarily off the table for SS either...what a game changer that would be.
-
Exclusivity would not be compatible to run along side Shutterstocks Premier Select service, though it could make sense to offer it to Premier Select contributors. So unless you are one of the chosen few, which none of you are, you are engaged in a pointless discussion again.
-
Never, shutterstock's business strategy is detrimental to the entire market and undermines the value of our assets.
Shutterstock has announce they are lowering the price of 4K clips by One Third
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-4k-price-change-to-199/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ss-4k-price-change-to-199/)
Shutterstock publicly admits that they have purposely chosen not to raise prices as a business strategy to gain market share. Shutterstock has also admitted that they will continue to price undercut the competition as a long term business road path.
Shutterstock's long term price undercutting strategy has negatively impacted micro pricing and subscription strategy for the entire industry.
"We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow."
Snip
Duck Swartz
So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s 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
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 we’re 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 haven’t 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)
Modify message
-
if u had asked this question a year ago, before all the absurdities, i would be the biggest cheerleader to be exclusive with ss.
but now, with like other ppl even the longest time contributors all saying the drop in earning is getting worse and worse...
i would not want to risk putting my trust in ss.
they flip switch, limit dls once you make a big sales, have trusted managers quit,etc..
all reminding me of istock before they went bottoms-up.
no, not unless Oringer turns around and show some of his uprightness that made ss #1
ie before he sold shares ...
i would say pretty soon we would all be left without any good agency in microstock.
i would say, start looking for a dayjob or a new outlet to sell your wares
-
if u had asked this question a year ago, before all the absurdities, i would be the biggest cheerleader to be exclusive with ss.
but now, with like other ppl even the longest time contributors all saying the drop in earning is getting worse and worse...
i would not want to risk putting my trust in ss.
they flip switch, limit dls once you make a big sales, have trusted managers quit,etc..
all reminding me of istock before they went bottoms-up.
no, not unless Oringer turns around and show some of his uprightness that made ss #1
ie before he sold shares ...
i would say pretty soon we would all be left without any good agency in microstock.
i would say, start looking for a dayjob or a new outlet to sell your wares
Here are a few shutterstock company reviews on glass door.
"Cons
Too many to list. Try asking one of more than 100 former employees that have left company in the past year"
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm (http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm)
“Staff do not care for you. ”
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO
Pros
Good experiences drowning in dissatisfaction with the staff.
Cons
Silly customer - hah hah !!!
Advice to Management
Customer care and respect.
May 5, 2015
“Horrible Company. Look Elsewhere. ”
Former Employee - Inside Sales Representative in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO
Pros
They have snacks whenever you want...just like preschool.
Cons
Too many to list. Try asking one of more than 100 former employees that have left company in the past year...
Advice to Management
Keep that resume up to date.
Jun 8
“Great company/business, friendly people, lousy engineering environment ”
Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 3 years)
Doesn't Recommend
No opinion of CEO
Pros
Shutterstock in general knows how to get business and make money. All the people there are friendly and nice and enjoyable to be around. The work-life balance is fine. Their new Empire State Building office is kinda nifty. Assuming that the company's growth continues, new technology/leadership opportunities will also continue to open themselves to employees.
Cons
Engineers/programmers: DO NOT work at Shutterstock to exercise your skills with modern web or backend development. DO NOT work at Shutterstock to learn modern web or backend development skills. You won't accomplish either. If you have a favorite framework at any level of the application stack, odds are good that its use is explicitly forbidden.
Apr 2, 2015
“Horrible management ”
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee
I worked at Shutterstock
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO
Pros
good co-workers, 15 min. massage, Espresso Machine
Cons
Blood * management firing people who started to work before them. Booz in the office.
Advice to Management
Hope they will move on to the next company sooner : your next victim.
Jan 24, 2015
“Poor leadership. ”
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Neutral Outlook
Disapproves of CEO
Pros
Very nice, creative and ambitious people (especially below management), perks including food, tech happy hours and meetups, great office with lots of light.
Cons
Changing rapidly, lost the good leadership they had, extremely impatient culture, disorganized, too many opinions and stakeholders on every new project.
Advice to Management
Promote more from within, hire strong agreeable people who know how to manage and lead. Stop with the fire drills and remember your people have value to add. Restructuring product teams in a vacuum is leaving out some of the best talent.
Mar 9, 2015
“Opinion to Management ”
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO
Pros
Free lunches daily to save money on expensive midtown prices
Cons
not great with communication to employees, and if you voiced you opinion about something it would be looked at as an issue then you will be the outsider starting problems. Then they will find problems with you and get rid of you with some sort of political way to ensure you do not come back at them.
Advice to Management
Truly allow employees to voice their opinion without taking it personal. The company success is because of the people who enjoy working with clients and providing the best service to them.
May 16, 2015
“Growing pains ”
Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Positive Outlook
Approves of CEO
Pros
Good perks and benefits. Opportunities to cross over to other teams and really learn how each team functions.
Cons
Leadership uneven. Feedback not always well taken even when obviously needed. Management and operations not expanding and functioning at the level needed for such rapid growth.
Advice to Management
See above.
“Enthusiastic Tech Department but Serious Growing Pains ”
Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY
I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO
Pros
I worked in the Tech department so I can only speak to that part of the company. Overall, people are really friendly and excited to work here. The engineers participate in quarterly Code Rages and one annual Hackathon. Remote employees are regularly flown out for these events. The office is beautiful and has lots of natural light. There are lots of little rooms around the office to escape to, like… Show More
Cons
The biggest con is the lack of career development. When you come into a role in the tech department, it's very difficult to evolve into any role other than what you were hired for without a lot of advocacy from the right people. There's just no process for things like team rotations and it's easy to come into a role and just stay there for years. The review and bonus… Show More
Advice to Management
Just because an employee is salaried doesn't mean you can force them to work more than 40 hours per week. Don't treat your tech staff like they should feel privileged working for you... remember that in this competitive industry, if you aren't taking care of your tech people, they can easily go elsewhere. Hire execs that actually have executive experience at companies that reflect the kind of company you want to be. Better yet, hire execs that actually like people and have a sense of humor!
Jun 2, 2015
“infrastructure engineer ”
Current Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY
I have been working at Shutterstock full-time (More than a year)
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Pros
very generous company to work for, interesting scaling issues, lots of problems to solve
Cons
leadership issues, too many programming languages, lack of ownership, mentality to replace tech rather than to fix it
Advice to Management
listen to your employees, don't just brush them off
“It used to be better ”
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee
I have been working at Shutterstock
Pros
Perks: food, chair massages, yoga (for tech only) in the elevator bay, espresso machine, get to browse photos at work when bored, innovative, awesome coworkers, the view from the bathroom.
Cons
Negatives: Management secrecy and poor communication, lack of opportunities, very limited equity, located in Fi Di, top positions filled by VC picks, fun lookin hallways lead to drab cube farms
Advice to Management
The company is either a startup or larger company with corporate structure and people in 3 piece suits. It is presently the latter dressed as the former.
Jan 15, 2015
“Great benefits, good salary, but.... ”
Current Employee - Sales in New York, NY
I have been working at Shutterstock full-time
Doesn't Recommend
Positive Outlook
No opinion of CEO
Pros
Shutterstock pays well. In my case they didn't pay what they had promised in the recruiting process. The benefits are really nice, you get stock options, ESPP, a generous travel policy, fitness budget, drinks, etc. Shutterstock products are great, very easy to sell, but sales has to sell a lot. Clients like Shutterstock a lot. The processes work well, very smart and talented people in the company, but also really weird characters, especially out of the employees that started in the early days of Shutterstock. New staff is usually better educated and more experienced except a few strange hires. Very nice offices and locations around the world.
Cons
A big issue is that Shutterstock still employs people from the old days of Shutterstock who haven't seen a lot in the business world. Some of them don't have great education compared to other employees. Nevertheless, they have a lot influence and want to keep their power. Politics is also a big problem in my opinion. Some control freaks in the company and some people who think that they are better than the rest, especially in the lower and middle management. Some people are top performers, other people just talk a lot. In general the company is very performance driven. It's all about figures and revenues, maybe due to the NYSE listing. When I started at Shutterstock it was all about hiring. Today I hear more and more stories about firing people. Usually not a lot communication why. Sometimes also questionable firing decisions.
Advice to Management
It's not only about disrupting an industry, it's also about disrupting old structures internally and creating a great culture (besides things you can pay for). I miss the balance. Politics are an issue I believe. Make sure that people find a home at Shutterstock, don't give them the feeling that they can and will be fired very quickly, if something doesn't work out. Rather find solutions. Think long term - sales and revenue is not everything.
-
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.
-
Interesting comment about old timers vs new timers. Similar to the SS forum, with the elite four leading the old timer pack bashing newbies with an opinion. Been there, took the heat.
-
Funny how a couple of people here will turn anything into an excuse to bash SS. I'll try to take this back to the OPs question: (yes there are eight points numbered 1-7 and 7) :)
Why going exclusive with another agency is a bad idea:
1) You will be just another exclusive among hundreds vying for the same resources from one company. You can't go to another company to complain- you are stuck with a single channel.
2) Competition is good for the industry and YOU! Let's say you don't like the way they are treating a certain rule/idea/etc. You have nowhere to go! At least you can use your vote by concentrating your efforts on another agency until the other one gets back in line. Why give up your voting power? In fact, these other agencies don't even let you talk about other stock agencies on their forums. You give up a lot to go exclusive.
3) Why sell your photos in one place for just a 10% increase at that one agency? Tons of photographers are telling me every day that they make more with ShutterStock than anywhere else! Why not make cash here, AND everywhere else?
4) Staying with ShutterStock means being part of something new and changing. We consider all of your suggestions - and implement them back into the system as quickly as we can. What happened when we weren't processing photos fast enough? We hired a night reviewer who worked on Christmas Eve! What other agency will review your photos on a major holiday?
5) I don't like exclusivity -- and i don t plan to lock anybody into ShutterStock. I think you guys should sell your photos everywhere and make as much money as possible! Besides - the model we have here is just one model... Your photos may do well here some parts of the year, and better in other places other parts of the year.
6) Other places may try to convince you that going exclusive is a good business idea. It is exactly the opposite! If you aren't convinced of that, go back to (1) and do not proceed until you agree. ;)
7) Our traffic is increasing. Sales are increasing. If you don t believe me, check out our Alexa Graph. If that doesn t convince you to stay here what will?
7) Finally, I would hate to see any of you go!
Would welcome any feedback you guys have.
Jon Oringer, Founder and CEO
ShutterStock, Inc.
(Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004)
-
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.
I looked at the site a few months ago and copied them in order.
I find it weird that no matter what shutterstock does you defend them. I suppose you think the 1/3 price reduction on 4K vid is a positive.
-
A lot has changed in 11 years
-
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.
Click on the "Rating Trends", I think literally everything you can look at shows a drop. He might not be skewing it too much.
-
That's so weird...the company seems to have overall fairly positive reviews there, especially the ones at the top of the page, but somehow you missed them when you cut and pasted.
I looked at the site a few months ago and copied them in order.
I find it weird that no matter what shutterstock does you defend them. I suppose you think the 1/3 price reduction on 4K vid is a positive.
I have no opinion about the drop in video pricing because I don't do video (well, I write video, but someone else shoots it).
Actually, I'm not thrilled with the constant banner that reminds people they don't need an extended license, because those have dried up for me as of this month. I'm also hoping the Adobe Stock deal makes them rethink their royalty rate, because it's too low...as is the royalty rate at every stock site I have work on, though iStock's is the most egregious.
But you only look for what you want to see, so whatevs.
-
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.
I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.
-
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.
I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.
How would you define "higher quality"?
-
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.
I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.
How would you define "higher quality"?
There are some approaches.
- By the number of sales (Fotolia, Dreamstime)
- On a case by case basis (Vetta)
- Let us pick the prices we want to sell for (Pond5, Fotolia to a limited extent)
-
Funny how posting actual employee reviews that were copied in the order, after I signed on to the site to read them, can be construed as bashing. Employee perception is a simple reality check in regard to company moral and what is happening internally.
I simply gave examples of the reasons I would not consider going exclusive in the company's and employees own words. The main reason being the position management has taken and publicly stated in regard to their long term business road path.
-
Funny how posting actual employee reviews that were copied in the order, after I signed on to the site to read them, can be construed as bashing. Employee perception is a simple reality check in regard to company moral and what is happening internally.
I simply gave examples of the reasons I would not consider going exclusive in the company's and employees own words. The main reason being the position management has taken and publicly stated in regard to their long term business road path.
Experts in libel and slander assert that defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not. When Tyler gets sued by somebody for what the anonymous haters post here, we might see some changes made.
-
Experts in libel and slander assert that defamation does not have to be widely published, merely said by one party to another and understood by the second party to be fact, when it is not. When Tyler gets sued by somebody for what the anonymous haters post here, we might see some changes made.
Can not claim slander if it is documented fact, a quick visit to the page below and a page search using the names Duck Swartz, Timothy E. Bixby and Jonathan Oringer gives exact quotes in transcript that each person presents at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging/SMID Cap Growth Conference.
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)
-
We have all understood you don't like shutterstock by now.
So which agency would you recommend for exclusive content? Which agency gets it right?
There are a huge number of agencies out there, or do you think it is better to just sell direct?
Instead of always bashing SS, why don't you promote a fair trade site that you like?
ETA: what about 500pix? Pays out 70% and has macro pricing. Maybe that is a better environment for your work.
-
What I really want is for SS to decommoditize their collection, higher prices for higher quality content.
I don't care how they do it, I don't care if Adobe or another agency does it. But whoever does it and manages to keep a decent amount of sales volume and reasonable royalty they can have all my best work exclusively.
How would you define "higher quality"?
Seriously?
-
Yes, seriously. What sells the most is not always of the highest "quality". We know what we would eliminate on most of the sites as lowest quality but when you try to define what should be moved to the top tier you can't always identify what that is. Best camera, best lighting, studio shots? Look at the discussions lately of another site that considers themselves new and meeting the needs of today's designer's. Comments were made about many out of focus, filtered, dull colored photos there were on the site. Do you consider those high quality? I'm just trying to get a definition of high quality when it comes to stock imagery. Saleability and quality are not the same thing, or are they?
-
Royalties are not everything. The concept of Shutterstocks success in the past was
1. not screwing up
2. good business relations with B2B and customers.
Beyond that, they have not done much to support contributors and actively ignore inquiries of us for _years_ (e.g. Payoneer, incompetent and ridiculous inspection routines, better Release Manager,...). All this and the missing raise which is long overdue already drove away some high class contributors from them. I do not have the impression they are so very interested in the concerns of their suppliers.
And this leads me to the conclusion that I would not want to be exclusively involved.
Any company which wishes to engage me into a more profund commitment like a exclusive contract needs to show actively that it is actually interested in supporting me as their supplier.
-
Yes... with 1 dollar subs
-
Yes, seriously. What sells the most is not always of the highest "quality". We know what we would eliminate on most of the sites as lowest quality but when you try to define what should be moved to the top tier you can't always identify what that is. Best camera, best lighting, studio shots? Look at the discussions lately of another site that considers themselves new and meeting the needs of today's designer's. Comments were made about many out of focus, filtered, dull colored photos there were on the site. Do you consider those high quality? I'm just trying to get a definition of high quality when it comes to stock imagery. Saleability and quality are not the same thing, or are they?
This is so true, if you look at the smartphone collections full of underexposed,out of focus,completely overfiltered files and then see that they can be sold for hundreds of dollars...it really is a difficult decision.
I think in the end the customer will pay for the editing and filtering of a collection for a given style or theme.
Of course there are images that cost thousands to produce, but still, some artists find they can get their best return by offering them for 30 cents and get the volume.
-
We have all understood you don't like shutterstock by now.
So which agency would you recommend for exclusive content? Which agency gets it right?
There are a huge number of agencies out there, or do you think it is better to just sell direct?
Instead of always bashing SS, why don't you promote a fair trade site that you like?
ETA: what about 500pix? Pays out 70% and has macro pricing. Maybe that is a better environment for your work.
You have the right to overlook the facts and exalt various sites, just as I have to the right to answer a direct question regarding any site truthfully. Your suggestion would be off topic.
The thread topic and question was
"Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions. Will anyone accept that? Explain why not or why would you?"
-
And all discussions here only deal with one question without ever evolving...
So you are not interested in placing images exclusively on SS and I would be, depending on what they offer. Very simple.
-
Yes, seriously. What sells the most is not always of the highest "quality". We know what we would eliminate on most of the sites as lowest quality but when you try to define what should be moved to the top tier you can't always identify what that is. Best camera, best lighting, studio shots? Look at the discussions lately of another site that considers themselves new and meeting the needs of today's designer's. Comments were made about many out of focus, filtered, dull colored photos there were on the site. Do you consider those high quality? I'm just trying to get a definition of high quality when it comes to stock imagery. Saleability and quality are not the same thing, or are they?
Are you telling me every single image you produce is the same?
There isn't a percentage of your portfolio that is of a higher quality than the rest?
-
And all discussions here only deal with one question without ever evolving...
So you are not interested in placing images exclusively on SS and I would be, depending on what they offer. Very simple.
Evolving would include the willingness to look at the reality of the situation. At one time we all loved shutterstock, many of us have changed our opinions based on shutterstocks years long actions; which you are now asking me to ignore.
You have been a member of shutterstock for a blip in time and you are asking me to stuff my experience there, so that you can keep your blissful picture. If you want to evolve you might ask yourself why you expect this of me. And you might also ask yourself why you glorify sites that do not deserve it.
-
Why do I have to follow your choices? Can´t I make my own? And who said I have the intention of placing thousands of files on the micros? I think I sent less than 100 images to the micros this year.
SS has been very good for video, but not really impressive for photos, like most micro agencies, except for the exclusive files. But in general, exclusive images, both on micro/mid/macro in different places earn me more money, than files distributed everyhwere.
So for my work, exclusive images depending on theme and style, seem to be the best way forward. This is my conclusion from being indie for two years.
Your portfolio and your personal style will give you different results. Other friends of mine upload most of their files everyhwere and it seems to work for them.
It really isn´t a big problem, there are so many different places to work with. And it brings good balance if you are not dependent on one single site. No agency gives me more than 15% in total for the month. And I hope it will stay that way.
Eta: I can relate to the disappointment when you fall in love with a site and then it all comes crushing down around you. But I was artist exclusive, you have always been completely free.
so when I went indie i decided I don't want to ever be overly dependent on just one place.
The sites will all have good years and bad years, good managers with vision and people with no ideas. i can't change that. But I can decide and fully control how much I want to be exposed to them.
-
really, i am not one to believe ex employees any more than i believe some ss guy who comes in here one week to complain about poor sales, then next week say hooray best day ever,etc.
the publishing of how bad ss treat employees is really even more difficult to believe. which ex-employee has anything nice to say if they were fired or just laid-off for poor performance? can i see the reason why they left or quit?
also, when you join any company, you also signed as part of the employment agreement never to give out anything that is considered confidential.
for that last reason, i never believe anything published on the web or anywhere by ex-employees.
but i do believe when someone like JSLocke comes in here and say he had 40% drop in sales. and that is something to worry ... putting your future in ss.
-
And all discussions here only deal with one question without ever evolving...
So you are not interested in placing images exclusively on SS and I would be, depending on what they offer. Very simple.
Evolving would include the willingness to look at the reality of the situation. At one time we all loved shutterstock, many of us have changed our opinions based on shutterstocks years long actions; which you are now asking me to ignore.
You have been a member of shutterstock for a blip in time and you are asking me to stuff my experience there, so that you can keep your blissful picture. If you want to evolve you might ask yourself why you expect this of me. And you might also ask yourself why you glorify sites that do not deserve it.
Enjoy your everlasting miserable outlook, personal dissatisfaction and anger. Stop forcing it on everybody else in the forum.
-
And all discussions here only deal with one question without ever evolving...
So you are not interested in placing images exclusively on SS and I would be, depending on what they offer. Very simple.
Evolving would include the willingness to look at the reality of the situation. At one time we all loved shutterstock, many of us have changed our opinions based on shutterstocks years long actions; which you are now asking me to ignore.
You have been a member of shutterstock for a blip in time and you are asking me to stuff my experience there, so that you can keep your blissful picture. If you want to evolve you might ask yourself why you expect this of me. And you might also ask yourself why you glorify sites that do not deserve it.
Enjoy your everlasting miserable outlook, personal dissatisfaction and anger. Stop forcing it on everybody else in the forum.
Gbalex has the same right to his opinion as me and you. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes not. Do you know about the ignore button?
-
What a lot of debate about something that's not going to happen.....unless perhaps SS start to lose sales which would not be a good time to go exclusive. I could be wrong of course but will think about it properly if it ever happens :o
-
We have all understood you don't like shutterstock by now.
So which agency would you recommend for exclusive content? Which agency gets it right?
There are a huge number of agencies out there, or do you think it is better to just sell direct?
Instead of always bashing SS, why don't you promote a fair trade site that you like?
ETA: what about 500pix? Pays out 70% and has macro pricing. Maybe that is a better environment for your work.
I am not the one telling any of you what to post, where to submit, how to behave or how to view the microstock business.
Instead you are all trying to force your viewpoints on me and you expect me to stuff it if I do not share your veiws. I have every right to answer a direct question honestly.
-
I like to hear different views that's how we progress and learn. I don't like personal generalised attacks they don't help me.
-
gbalex, it is your life. I am just wondering why you seem so focussed on SS, if you are so disappointed. If you want to make SS the main focus of your uploads, time and financial returns that is your decision. You have been indie much longer than me,so you know what you are doing.
But I don´t have to make SS my main source of income and it is definetly not my main source of interest in stock, I am free to look around and work with the whole market. One of the agencies I work with, but not the only one.
I mean, you keep warning us about SS, that years ago it was a good agency, but now it changed, that they have rigged their best match to encourage newbies, but that this "bonus" runs out after two years etc...
So isn´t what I am doing logical, to not be too dependent on them?
Everybody has their own strategy, there is not just one way to do stock.
So if SS starts to offer exclusive images one day, and if the program offered made financial sense, I would add them to my list of exclusive sellers, yes I would.
Maybe SS will go back to being what it was one day and you will earn again as much as you used to.
Would exclusive images help SS become a stronger agency? Would it be good for your income if they offered such a program?
But nobody knows if they will ever do it. They always said they wouldn´t.
-
Cobalt you seem to be overly interested in my business. Let me worry about where I place my content.
From a moral standpoint I think it is fair to advise new contributors when a company openly states that they intend to keep pricing at a level that will gain their company market share because their business choices have and will continue to affect the entire market. I can understand that the company and those actively working to promote said company would rather keep those company comments to the wall street crowd hidden.
You have stated in another thread that you are working with fotolia, shutterstock and formerly istock to help groups of their contributors produce authentic content so they can make better offers to their local customers and markets currently provided by macro producers. In that post, you pointed out that of course agencies want to distinguish themselves from each other and your point is valid. I can see why the sites would be interested in working with you to secure such content.
However you tend to only highlight positive points about each company. Many of those points have gone against my own experience with those companies and each of us has the right to report our own experiences.
I can see why your comments would be beneficial for the micro companies you praise enthusiastically. However honest viewpoints from long time contributors and valid comments from said company, might also be helpful for new contributors who would like to know where the value of their portfolios will stand in future years.
-
I can see why your comments would be beneficial for the micro companies you praise enthusiastically. However honest viewpoints from long time contributors and valid comments from said company, might also be helpful for new contributors who would like to know where the value of their portfolios will stand in future years.
So what's your most helpful positive suggestion on where new contributors should place their content?
-
.
-
I can see why your comments would be beneficial for the micro companies you praise enthusiastically. However honest viewpoints from long time contributors and valid comments from said company, might also be helpful for new contributors who would like to know where the value of their portfolios will stand in future years.
So what's your most helpful positive suggestion on where new contributors should place their content?
.
Good answer.
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.
Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.
Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.
Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.
I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.
Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.
Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.
I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.
Feel free. Although you'd have to look up under my old user id (farbled). Isn't that part of what a forum is about? Challenging opinions (or lack of them)?
-
I would go exclusive under certain conditions But even if those conditions were met the #1 reason if I would do it for them or...."Someone else" Is Not having to upload to all the others. in My 11 years. I've been with more than 39 sites, More than half are gone. I am currently with 9. If I dropped 8 think of the time I would get back pursuing other things instead of this feed the beast thing. Im very big on time VS return and having many other outlets for my work. I am simply spending way to much now for the return. If...in time no one offers a good choice I will have no other options but dropping sites.
-
Cobalt you seem to be overly interested in my business. Let me worry about where I place my content.
From a moral standpoint I think it is fair to advise new contributors when a company openly states that they intend to keep pricing at a level that will gain their company market share because their business choices have and will continue to affect the entire market. I can understand that the company and those actively working to promote said company would rather keep those company comments to the wall street crowd hidden.
You have stated in another thread that you are working with fotolia, shutterstock and formerly istock to help groups of their contributors produce authentic content so they can make better offers to their local customers and markets currently provided by macro producers. In that post, you pointed out that of course agencies want to distinguish themselves from each other and your point is valid. I can see why the sites would be interested in working with you to secure such content.
However you tend to only highlight positive points about each company. Many of those points have gone against my own experience with those companies and each of us has the right to report our own experiences.
I can see why your comments would be beneficial for the micro companies you praise enthusiastically. However honest viewpoints from long time contributors and valid comments from said company, might also be helpful for new contributors who would like to know where the value of their portfolios will stand in future years.
I have never been an employee of fotolia and SS, nor have I ever written any paid posts or made comments with the intention of "promoting" a specific agency.
What i write is entirely my own opinion, I am completly independent.
There is simply no benefit for me to prefer one agency, I don't want to ever see my income drop drastically because one place messes up.
You also seem to ignore all the negative things i write, like that for me SS is not a very interesting agency for photos, only for video.
That is a very, very negative thing to say about the microstock agency most people are reporting as their best. And yet, this is my honest opinion, formed by practical experience in the last two years.
However, this is the way it works for me. Right now. Today. Other artists, will have other experiences and maybe my SS income from photos will improve in time. Maybe it really needs 6000 images or more to really benefit from their system, I don´t know.
Fotolia doesn't offer any search function for customers for exclusive content. Their upload process, especially their categories are a horrible experience.
i never opted into the dollar photo club and was extremely angry my files were "hijacked " without asking me.
So i really don't understand what on earth you mean by "promoting" stock companies. I write about my experiences, just like everyone else here. I still have less than one thousand photos on the micros and this year my main focus was creating exclusive content,several hundred versus around a hundred for micro.
Maybe next year i will switch again and do it the other way round.
If SS is the most interesting place for you,because you believe they have the strongest influence on the market, that is certainly a point to make. But their importance is now threatened by the entry of adobe and inspite of their debts, Getty is still double their size.
Otherwise you said yourself, your business is doing well, which I assume means you are getting better income elsewhere than SS. If you don´t want to share which agencies work better for you, or believe this will better protect your income, by not mentioning them, it is fine and congratulations.
Eta: if istock would offer exclusive images, I would send them exclusive content as well
-
For me is acceptable only image exclusivity, for photographer exclusivity - i have no trust to any agency.
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.
Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.
Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.
I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.
Feel free. Although you'd have to look up under my old user id (farbled). Isn't that part of what a forum is about? Challenging opinions (or lack of them)?
I find your comment amusing considering you have shared no opinions, in regard to the topic of this thread.
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
The thread topic and question was as follows, the op did not ask about other sites.
"Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions. Will anyone accept that? Explain why not or why would you?"
-
cobalt you are off base if you think that my focus is solely shutterstock, based on their actions I have moved most of my focus to other sites and avenues.
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS. The downward pricing on video instigated by BS, left a bad taste in my mouth and I now focus on other sites who I feel do a better job of protecting our interests. No need to mention who they are because everyone is aware of them.
I comment on shutterstocks negative moves more often than other sites, because as a micro leader their negative moves have significant impact on the industry as a whole.
-
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?
-
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
They were only asked about positive recommendations, which isn't at all the same thing.
Then I will open it up and ask for (their pro, based on long experience) positive or negative opinion on other agencies.
Would you like me to follow you in various threads and critique your responses.
I think I will leave it to you to determine how you wish to conduct your business and what you post in each thread.
Feel free. Although you'd have to look up under my old user id (farbled). Isn't that part of what a forum is about? Challenging opinions (or lack of them)?
I find your comment amusing considering you have shared no opinions, in regard to the topic of this thread.
.
You have no opinion you're willing to share about any agency except SS?
The thread topic and question was as follows, the op did not ask about other sites.
"Topic: What if SS offer exclusivity with these contributors commissions. Will anyone accept that? Explain why not or why would you?"
I'm glad you find my comments amusing. I'd hate for it to be one sided. :)
If SS offered image exclusivity I would consider it, but in light of my sales patterns, my niche subjects and a few other things, I would likely not bother. My best sellers generally are best sellers on most of the agencies I submit to, so exclusivity would quite possibly decrease my sales. I am hopeful that with Adobe throwing their hat in, it will increase competition and (hopefully) mean a better deal for all of us.
Regarding your other point, you opened the door for broader question when you said you were providing an opinion for new entrants to the MS world. I see no problem expanding on an OP if it seems relevant to the discussion. We've all done it at various times. That said, it's very early in the morning and I'm not completely awake yet, so I'll bow out until I get some more coffee in me.
-
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What??!!! They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock? That's a terrible move on your friends parts. They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this. Could you explain more?
Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders. I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.
Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV. If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt. Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment.
I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights. There is no need to choose. Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.
-
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What??!!! They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock? That's a terrible move on your friends parts. They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this. Could you explain more?
Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders. I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.
Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV. If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt. Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment.
I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights. There is no need to choose. Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.
Lisa and quite a few like her went by the wayside as a result of the mentality on this forum. Some of them used to tell me they thought the sites had employees sign up to heckle their opinions for obvious reasons.
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
-
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.
On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees. Bit paranoid there. But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.
-
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.
On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees. Bit paranoid there. But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.
I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community)
-
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.
On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees. Bit paranoid there. But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.
I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community[/url])
Anyone who is still having love affair with any of the agencies is kidding themselves. Your linked article is a good example. Wasn't this same person deeply devoted to another agency a couple years ago? Maybe some people have a strong need to belong to something. I know people who are the same way devoted to sports teams.
These stock sites are all out for their profits, not ours. It is foolish to form emotional attachment to any of them. And to heckle people who are skeptics is short sighted. May skeptics here have been proved right in time.
-
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.
On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees. Bit paranoid there. But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.
I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community[/url])
Anyone who is still having love affair with any of the agencies is kidding themselves. Your linked article is a good example. Wasn't this same person deeply devoted to another agency a couple years ago? Maybe some people have a strong need to belong to something. I know people who are the same way devoted to sports teams.
These stock sites are all out for their profits, not ours. It is foolish to form emotional attachment to any of them. And to heckle people who are skeptics is short sighted. May skeptics here have been proved right in time.
Yes IS history repeating itself on other sites, the people who thought they would garner preferential treatment @ IS by training their competitors, eventually had to deal with the reality of the situation. Not surprised to see the scenario repeat itself on other sites.
If you do a search on this site you can see contributors being lambasted for simply stating the truth in regard to IS. Virulent supporters defended the site, while also demeaning those who challenged its actions; until the bitter end.
-
After being exclusive with Istock I wouldn't go exclusive with what the OP is proposing. I now want total control over my images to do what I want. An agency would need to offer me a boatload of guaranteed money over a long time for me to go exclusive again.
-
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.
On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees. Bit paranoid there. But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.
I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community[/url])
You mean like Semmick when he was the self appointed rep. for Ireland. SS was smart enough to steer clear of that. They must read forums and see how some people are high risk. Yourself included for your never ending attack on anything SS.
-
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What??!!! They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock? That's a terrible move on your friends parts. They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this. Could you explain more?
Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders. I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.
Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV. If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt. Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment.
I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights. There is no need to choose. Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.
Lisa and quite a few like her went by the wayside as a result of the mentality on this forum. Some of them used to tell me they thought the sites had employees sign up to heckle their opinions for obvious reasons.
I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.
Lisa left because of people like you.
People on SS who sold out their collection of video to BS for a payment or continuing payments were asked and accepted the terms. Before the video showed up on BS. I don't like the cheap subs but I don't know how much the contract was for "your friends" who you claim to know, but they didn't tell you anything. Just as good as you making it up, as usual. If you had facts I'd read with interest. You have a guess, no information. Your guess is of course negative against SS.
Speaking of people hired by an agency. Somebody said you were an owner in a major agency and that's why you come to bash SS so much? Is that true? He swears it's a fact top ten agency major player. Are you a partner or owner in a big agency?
-
For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.
It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/)
Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.
Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?
-
Lisa left because of people like you.
People on SS who sold out their collection of video to BS for a payment or continuing payments were asked and accepted the terms. Before the video showed up on BS. I don't like the cheap subs but I don't know how much the contract was for "your friends" who you claim to know, but they didn't tell you anything. Just as good as you making it up, as usual. If you had facts I'd read with interest. You have a guess, no information. Your guess is of course negative against SS.
Speaking of people hired by an agency. Somebody said you were an owner in a major agency and that's why you come to bash SS so much? Is that true? He swears it's a fact top ten agency major player. Are you a partner or owner in a big agency?
Your really off base here, Lisa and I talked often and I can assure you I am not the reason she left.
I also do not own or work for any agency, but I am disgusted by the moves shutterstock has made, how those moves have affected people I have watched work hard for years as well as other agencies.
If more people stood up to the agencies who take advantage of our complacency, I think the agencies would not be taking the liberties they do with our assets. Look how well it is working out for us.
I would not go into the particulars of anyone's business, I think that should be left to them. I am sure it was different for everyone depending on the size and content of their ports and the average sales numbers for that port. The deal stinks for the industry as a whole pure and simple.
-
For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.
It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/[/url])
Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.
Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?
I don't think that was the deal for everyone, some of the ports on BS are still on SS. The fact that they carried this out on BS turned me off to uploading more vids on SS.
-
Not knowing the deal, I can't say how it was worked out.
The point is, these were not just moved without notice and everyone who has their collection on BS was notified in advance. Some might be moved off SS, some not, that's not important. Just a detail.
If these were sold at the basic sub rate on BS, people would make about 40c a DL at the usual SS 20% rate. (just a rough number, but it points out how standard commissions wouldn't work) Hardly enough for anyone to want to take the deal. There must have been some very enticing offer made, for the people who did allow this.
In fact, lets say the artists got 100%, that's still only $2.76 a DL? Hardly worth it for HD video.
Meanwhile, No I wouldn't go exclusive on SS if they ever offered it. Well maybe, if they offered four times the commissions that I currently get. :) Might be that Jon already figured that out and they wouldn't want exclusive artists because it would cut into the company profits too much. Better play is spin the answer into something positive, and tell us why we wouldn't want to do it either.
For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.
It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/[/url])
Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.
Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.
What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?
I don't think that was the deal for everyone, some of the ports on BS are still on SS. The fact that they carried this out on BS turned me off to uploading more vids on SS.
-
Not knowing the deal, I can't say how it was worked out.
The point is, these were not just moved without notice and everyone who has their collection on BS was notified in advance. Some might be moved off SS, some not, that's not important. Just a detail.
If these were sold at the basic sub rate on BS, people would make about 40c a DL at the usual SS 20% rate. (just a rough number, but it points out how standard commissions wouldn't work) Hardly enough for anyone to want to take the deal. There must have been some very enticing offer made, for the people who did allow this.
In fact, lets say the artists got 100%, that's still only $2.76 a DL? Hardly worth it for HD video.
Meanwhile, No I wouldn't go exclusive on SS if they ever offered it. Well maybe, if they offered four times the commissions that I currently get. :) Might be that Jon already figured that out and they wouldn't want exclusive artists because it would cut into the company profits too much. Better play is spin the answer into something positive, and tell us why we wouldn't want to do it either.
Yes I agree, I think it must have been different for everyone and they did know upfront and agreed to it.
I would not be surprised as part of the agreement they were required to sign an NDA, thus the lack of details.
-
I would not be surprised as part of the agreement they were required to sign an NDA, thus the lack of details.
NDA makes sense.
-
.What if?. Watching the trends, not a lot of space for positive expectations is left already.
-
You mean like Semmick when he was the self appointed rep. for Ireland. SS was smart enough to steer clear of that. They must read forums and see how some people are high risk. Yourself included for your never ending attack on anything SS.
I don't feel the need to trash talk Ron, I tell him what I believe when we disagree. We have butted heads here on the MSG forums many times, but over the last year I think he has done a good job of showing respect to me and other people here on the boards. We frequently agree and disagree and I think that is healthy.
As for your comment about me, I will take your comment as a compliment. If I were going to promote any company as a "Community Leader". I would need to be able to look each person I attracted to join thru the position in the eye and feel that the investment in time, talent, and funds they would personally choose to make, as a result of my involvement; would be beneficial to them in the long term.
Rather than take things at face value when shutterstock went public, I spent time to find out where we stand as contributors. I have taken the time to find out who joined shutterstock as key business decision makers as a result of the IPO. And I take time to read the financial reports and PR shutterstock is producing to attract investors. I think this is important for my own port, because shutterstock's key business insiders determine the future value of the assets we produce. And because they hold a large share of the market their business decisions, also affect the value of our assets on other micro & macro sites.
As a result of my research, I would not choose to be a Community Leader at a company that chooses to devalue our assets to gain market share. I would choose the welfare of my friends & colleges over any monetary or others benefits I might gain any day.
-
Aaaaah Batman. Still can't let go of me. :)
-
Not gonna happen, at least we still own our copyright: "You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive." Does this leave open the possibility that those things could change or that there was a discussion about them?