Quote from: michealo on June 19, 2009, 07:25

The market sets the value not me

Maybe you don't see this, but you are a part of the market.

The market consists of buyers AND sellers.

I do realise that sellers are a part of the market but I don't have pricing power because my images are nothing special ..

Quote from: michealo on June 19, 2009, 06:20

Quote from: gostwyck on June 19, 2009, 05:59

Quote from: michealo on June 19, 2009, 05:47

I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c

Would you also rather that someone else makes 5c at the loss to yourself of 50c? If so you should be concerned for others.

If JIU/PC were to become successful then potentially it could devalue the entire market for all of us. In my view we should not be supporting them with our content.

Based on the experience of those that have been selling there for several months you'll probably only make about $20 per month per 1000 images you send them. Is that worth the potential loss of sales from IS that could result?

a) No, that wouldn't be in my self interest and lets not kid ourselves that we are doing this for the common good.
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first

And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....

Using the same arguments as the macrostock photographers are using against microstock does not necessarily make gostwyck's arguments wrong. There should be a price point where you can make maximum profit on your images. So I am pretty sure you would not want to offer your images for a cent/dl, or am I mistaken?

But that is not the main problem I believe which many contributors have with sending images to JIU and Photos.com. It is that Getty lowers the commission for us contributors. Both exclusive and independent. Most obviously seen, when the announcement came, that StockXpert contributors cannot offer the images anymore through StockXpert but should do so through iStockphoto. But this is also the case for exclusives. For on Demand sales you will just receive 20% commission.

"So I am pretty sure you would not want to offer your images for a cent/dl, or am I mistaken?"

You're mistaken! Plenty of photographers will sell for one cent a download, in fact, plenty of photographers will GIVE away their photos.. (sxc.hu, free dreamstime images, free istock images, but dreamstime have built a whole web site around theirs!)

You can't blame the photographer, blame the agent, the agent should never have deserted the pay-as-you-go business model, they are to blame!!

.. it's not anyone else's fault that they are willing to work for pennies, it is the agencies fault for not giving EVERYONE a fair/good return..

The agencies can only sell our work at the price we agree to by submitting our images. No company is going to unilaterally decide to pay their suppliers more than they are asking. Of course it is our fault if we will work for pennies... if that�s what we are asking for that�s what we will get.

using SS as an example of a site that treats its contributors well is a first. the economy is beginning to rebound, slowly but surely. the recession is temporary and would not be used as a springboard into deflective or reactive restructuring of business models that worked before the recession.

Photos.com will be hoping to obliterate Shutterstock, and anyone opting in, is helping that process..

Quote from: disorderly on June 19, 2009, 12:10

Well, that's not entirely true.  How else do you explain Shutterstock's increasing royalties several times over its history?  Jon looked at his business, decided that he could raise prices and, once he felt he understood how that affected customers' downloading behavior, increased payouts.  Seems to me I was getting .20 per download when I started there.  Now I get .36.  If that isn't a company deciding unilaterally to pay its suppliers more, what is?

Of course, a combination of a down economy and more aggressive competition may entice companies to move in the opposite direction.  I hope not, but won't be surprised.

So SS pays you .36 and you think it's manna dropping from heaven?
did I misread something you wrote or is that what you're cheering SS so valiantly? (confused)

lol, 36 cents is 16 cents raise ! Wow, now you can afford a teaspoon of Guinness 

A first?  Am I really the only one here who has and continues to have a positive business relationship with Shutterstock?  I suspect that's not true.  Shutterstock makes me money; they're only a little behind iStock in overall income, with a lot fewer hassles.  They are much more accepting of my work, generally rejecting only based on technical quality and letting the customer decide what's stockworthy.  Their upload process is quick and easy.  Aside from the recent explosion over tax withholding, which doesn't affect me, I can't think of a situation where their communication with contributors was anything but professional and well reasoned.

I'm appreciative of the efforts of most of the micros, at least those that make me money.  But yeah, I'd say Shutterstock is an excellent example of a site that treats its contributors well.  More, I'd describe it as a business that treats its suppliers well, whatever the industry.

No, you're not the only one. That's a very good summary of Shutterstock. They are an excellent agency.

Quote from: disorderly on June 19, 2009, 12:53

A first?  Am I really the only one here who has and continues to have a positive business relationship with Shutterstock?  (snip)

No, you are not alone.  This expresses my feelings about - and business relationship with - Shutterstock perfectly.  Well said 

I think Shutterstock has always been very straight in its dealings with contributors (my experience with them from October 2004 - August 2008). I absolutely think that their success is why all the other PPD sites are interested in subs, although I expect that pressure from buyers is the other big factor.

My only quarrel with SS is the long term effects of the subscription model, which I don't think are good for contributors even though on a short term basis SS was always #1 or #2 in the monthly earnings race. So I agree that monthly earnings are the important measure - not some big percentage of close to $0 - but it should be sustainable monthly earnings over time, not just a short term view.

my post was not clear. the grumbling in these threads about IS, stockxpert and the partner program has an overall message that sub models kill microstock. then to see the SS business model being held up as a shining example seems hypocritical.

how can you condemn Getty or IS or whoever is in charge at IS for trying to break into and compete with SS in the sub arena, and in the same breath hold SS up for doing precisely the same thing. building volume sales for contributors at the expense of price per unit and allowing for the devaluation of work?  

how can you condemn Getty or IS or whoever is in charge at IS for trying to break into and compete with SS in the sub arena, and in the same breath hold SS up for doing precisely the same thing. building volume sales for contributors at the expense of price per unit and allowing for the devaluation of work?  

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the fact that SS pays me .38/sale for subs vs. .25 being offered by Getty.  That .13 makes a massive difference when you are talking about volume sales.    Not to mention SS has never LOWERED my commission, unlike what Getty is doing to both exclusives and non with this "partner" program.

The rest is hard to quantify - SS doesn't have site outages for hours or days that result in lost income.  I can't remember them ever having programming bugs.  I never had to disambiguate anything there.   They never changed the payout terms on me, etc.   Bottom line is (and I am just repeating what has been said before numerous times, including in this thread) they are hassle free. No drama at Shutterstock.  

When you are contributing to 8 sites or so, you really do appreciate the ones that just do what they promised and aren't always trying to put something over on you.

But am I mistaken or what, to have read that it was Shutterstock which started the subscription model. Had they not introduced this pay us peanuts great idea, we would not be screaming hell and high water over what Getty is doing to us at IStock and Stockxpert.  Or has everyone forgotten about that?
Sure you look at your paycheck and think oh wow, nice bossy gave me a fat check every month. But nice bossy was also the stinker who got you to accept a reduction of commission per download for the whole business.
Or did you all just contracted amnesia?

Sorry Puravida, but my microstock memory goes back quite a bit further than yours.  When microstock started as a paying business,  istock was paying .05/sale.  By 2005 when I joined istock and SS, istock was paying .10, .20, and .30.  SS was paying .20/sub sale.  So the prices were very comparable between PAYG and Subs.   And while IS has had price increases that have resulted in higher royalties, they have never actually given us a raise in royalty %.  SS gave me a raise every single year until this one, which is understandable considering the economy.

Lets also consider that Getty has been changing terms on its contributors.  That is what that lawsuit is about and that is what is happening to istock contributors.  It appears Getty takes any means to weasel out of it's contracts with its suppliers.  OTOH Shutterstock has always been very up front with suppliers and to my knowledge they have honored every contract they have had with me.

I can't really see how any knowledgeable person can see SS as the villain here.

I don't blame hawk eye for not understanding this if he/she has never submitted there, but I have to say, Puravida/Perseus, I have no idea where you are coming from on this.  What's your beef with Shutterstock?  
  

so if you take the little bit extra you're getting from SS, and divide that across the hours of extra work you put into uploading fresh meat to SS...those extra pennies start to matter less.

"little bit extra"??!  I make quite a bit more than a "little bit extra" on SS.  Believe me.  They have the volume.

And I upload the same images to all sites.  I don't work any harder for SS than any other site. 

You are free to speculate about any site you want, but my opinion is not based on speculation.  Rather it is based on objective experience.