Author Topic: I love Shutterstock!! (Read 28357 times)

gbalex · « **Reply #50 on:** April 18, 2015, 10:26 »

Quote - Time was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years.

There was also a time not so long ago on these boards when IS exclusives were not accused of being macro contributors.

It is baffling to me that so many here miss the fact that shutterstocks downward pressure has affected the entire market in a huge way. If you don't raise prices for 9 years to gain market share it takes it's toll on your competitors. In the end IS was forced to drop prices and adopt subs.

Mantis · « **Reply #51 on:** April 18, 2015, 11:00 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 18, 2015, 10:26

Quote - Time was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years.

There was also a time not so long ago on these boards when IS exclusives were not accused of being macro contributors.

It is baffling to me that so many here miss the fact that shutterstocks downward pressure has affected the entire market in a huge way. If you don't raise prices for 9 years to gain market share it takes it's toll on your competitors. In the end IS was forced to drop prices and adopt subs.

That's what I am saying, too. Well said. You cannot reverse the sub model into a non-sub model because all agencies would have to agree to that. As long as these agencies keep competing on price, subs will become cheaper and cheaper until this is a game to make my month is merely for beer money.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 18, 2015, 12:05 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 18, 2015, 10:26

Quote - Time was when we were all in love with iStock - but that didn't last more than a few years.

There was also a time not so long ago on these boards when IS exclusives were not accused of being macro contributors.

It is baffling to me that so many here miss the fact that shutterstocks downward pressure has affected the entire market in a huge way. If you don't raise prices for 9 years to gain market share it takes it's toll on your competitors. In the end IS was forced to drop prices and adopt subs.

iS has dropped prices and adopted subs and they're still going downhill. In fact, their prices are lower than SS's now. So why aren't they taking over the market?

Stocksy proved people are willing to pay more for quality images. iS could have taken any number of paths. And they were already offering subs through the PP.

They make wholesale changes without any evidence it will increase sales. Adding subs. Raising prices for buyers who liked buying small sizes, losing who knows how many customers. Eliminating image descriptions, asking contributors to take time away from creating new/better images and using their time to rewrite invisible descriptions instead. And being consistently behind the curve in what sorts of images they'll accept ("don't tell us images we've rejected are selling well elsewhere!"). I could go on.

Misstep after misstep. That's nobody's fault but theirs.

gbalex · « **Reply #53 on:** April 18, 2015, 13:47 »

Re IS - On many levels I agree with you, however I also firmly believe Shutterstock's business strategy has taken its toll overall.

Surely Shutterstock could have competed using many other methods in lieu of downward pricing to capture market share. As you mentioned Stocksy was able to do this and they had a substantially later start than Shutterstock.

Defend cheap, easily implemented and predatory business strategies all you want; in the end they are detrimental to all of our bottom lines. By defending pathetic business tactics we are slitting our own throats.

gbalex · « **Reply #54 on:** April 18, 2015, 13:49 »

duplicate

shudderstok · « **Reply #55 on:** April 18, 2015, 14:09 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 18, 2015, 13:47

Re IS - On many levels I agree with you, however I also firmly believe Shutterstock's business strategy has taken its toll overall.

Surely Shutterstock could have competed using many other methods in lieu of downward pricing to capture market share. As you mentioned Stocksy was able to do this and they had a substantially later start than Shutterstock.

Defend cheap, easily implemented and predatory business strategies all you want; in the end they are detrimental to all of our bottom lines. By defending pathetic business tactics we are slitting our own throats.

BINGO!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #56 on:** April 18, 2015, 15:03 »

Quote from: gbalex on April 18, 2015, 13:47

Re IS - On many levels I agree with you, however I also firmly believe Shutterstock's business strategy has taken its toll overall.

Surely Shutterstock could have competed using many other methods in lieu of downward pricing to capture market share. As you mentioned Stocksy was able to do this and they had a substantially later start than Shutterstock.

Defend cheap, easily implemented and predatory business strategies all you want; in the end they are detrimental to all of our bottom lines. By defending pathetic business tactics we are slitting our own throats.

in spite of agreeing with you for the general benefit of all contributors i would not go so far as to say Stocksy because they still seem to be the trendy bubble drink new kid on the block.
i think Veers or even Alamy or GL ...used to be that too, and now see where they are.
it's too soon to cheer for Stocksy just yet... moreoever they are not the one size fit all alternative to ss or what used to be is.
i used to think canstock was a good one where the owner was sincere , or that one with Elena...
or even John of Cutcaster. but sadly none of them had the market network of ss and is .

stuttershock · « **Reply #57 on:** April 18, 2015, 16:16 »

Quote from: K2 on April 16, 2015, 07:55

Oh my god SS is so great! I LOVE watching my total earnings increase pennies at a time. It's so gratifying and like I totally see how good subs are for contributors. The more subs I get the more I want to submit my best work!!! Whooooo hooooooo!!!!! Thanks Mr. Oringer!!!!

IMO, you're spot on (despite the criticism you -- unsurprisingly -- received here; see Mark Twain above, as quoted by my "almost name-compatriot" up there, he's spot on, too).

To be brief, I am myself at a loss for words about SS' policies -- in total stuttershock here ;)

stuttershock · « **Reply #58 on:** April 18, 2015, 16:19 »

[dupe too -- why is this hanging...]

PixelBytes · « **Reply #59 on:** April 19, 2015, 21:04 »

Just had to compliment your alias Stuttershock. Well chosen.

K2 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 19, 2015, 21:43 »

By saying this is just a hobby for you, you automatically render your justifications for subs mute. I know that some of you wanted to make this your living...you know who you are. You're comments on other forums are not forgotten. Don't give the easy excuse.."oh this is just a hobby." What that really means is that you failed to make microstock your living. That way of thinking is one of the reasons why corporations like SS can take advantage of us.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #61 on:** April 19, 2015, 23:46 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 18, 2015, 07:37

It doesn't matter what I think my pictures are worth the market decides that. If I thought I was hugely talented like some people clearly think they are I wouldn't be selling on Microstock.

Get real any business will pay just enough to their suppliers to keep them contributing. It works for my circumstances thats why I do it.

That's the truth - whether people like it or not.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #62 on:** April 20, 2015, 00:32 »

Quote from: K2 on April 19, 2015, 21:43

By saying this is just a hobby for you, you automatically render your justifications for subs mute. I know that some of you wanted to make this your living...you know who you are. You're comments on other forums are not forgotten. Don't give the easy excuse.."oh this is just a hobby." What that really means is that you failed to make microstock your living. That way of thinking is one of the reasons why corporations like SS can take advantage of us.

By using the word "mute" when you meant "moot" you render your comment annoyingly funny.

edit:
Anyone who thought it was a good idea to have a single source of income for their living was setting themselves up for a shock. Particularly as the basis for the income was a crowd sourced model based on technology that is becoming cheaper and more ubiquitous all the time. Maybe those who wanted to make this their living just clued in to how the industry actually works.
Career advice, if microstock is your only source of income, you need to diversify. Shoot assignments or weddings if you have that desire. Otherwise, the 'hobbyists" who don't have your need for maximizing the price point on image licenses are going to cause you pain. You are a typewriter specialist in the age of computers.

It isn't "good" or "bad", just the reality of the industry.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #63 on:** April 20, 2015, 20:31 »

yes, me too... even love the stupid capcha with frigging pictures. as if the illegible words were not bad enough...whose twisted idea is this???

pancaketom · « **Reply #64 on:** April 21, 2015, 13:19 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 20, 2015, 20:31

yes, me too... even love the stupid capcha with frigging pictures. as if the illegible words were not bad enough...whose twisted idea is this???

they (the captcha people) are trying to figure out how to determine if a user is a real person in new and sometimes annoying ways. One is to monitor how you move the mouse (notice that you can't tab to the "I am a real person" check box). I wonder if SS pays them to annoy us or if they pay SS for that honor.

re: SS and IS, it always seemed like IS and FT were leading the screw the contributor charge with <20% to the artists. SS was clever, stingy, greedy (you name it) enough to start out with about 30% to the artist when many other sites were at 50%. At least they haven't substantially reduced it (perhaps until now).

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #65 on:** April 21, 2015, 13:33 »

Quote from: pancaketom on April 21, 2015, 13:19

they (the captcha people) are trying to figure out how to determine if a user is a real person in new and sometimes annoying ways. One is to monitor how you move the mouse (notice that you can't tab to the "I am a real person" check box). I wonder if SS pays them to annoy us or if they pay SS for that honor.

i would say either way they are both totally effed-up minds!!!
it reminds me of those twisted politicians and security minds that penalize the majority good innocent people to introduce all sorts of irritations into the system just because of a twisted minority.
that's so typical isn't it???

samards · « **Reply #66 on:** April 24, 2015, 03:58 »

38c??!!

Sky high for me, I'm still at 25c....

BikeTourist · « **Reply #67 on:** April 24, 2015, 11:10 »

SS is imperfect. Fact. Yet they've made it possible for me to afford any photo equipment I desire in my retirement years, something that would otherwise not be possible. In contrast to assignment work, I'm free to follow my nose and cover any subject I wish. I have no AD looking over my shoulder. Only a reviewer who, once-in-a-while may turn out to be an abject idiot . . . but not too often.

I read books on my Kindle and don't pay nearly what I used to for hard covers or even paperbacks. I enjoy all the music I can absorb for free. These are all 21st Century phenomena linked to computers and the internet. The graphic arts are no different than the entire arts field. To have expectations based on 20th Century practices is, to me, not realistic.

Some photographers will not lament the passing of the old business model. They will invent a new one.

That said, hey Shutterstock, how about increasing the 38 cents per by a few pennies!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #68 on:** April 24, 2015, 13:27 »

Quote from: BikeTourist on April 24, 2015, 11:10

I read books on my Kindle and don't pay nearly what I used to for hard covers or even paperbacks. I enjoy all the music I can absorb for free. These are all 21st Century phenomena linked to computers and the internet. The graphic arts are no different than the entire arts field. To have expectations based on 20th Century practices is, to me, not realistic.

Some photographers will not lament the passing of the old business model. They will invent a new one.

That said, hey Shutterstock, how about increasing the 38 cents per by a few pennies!

yes, but that 21 C phenomena is not free as you say...
it is at someone's expense ie the author, the composer,.. the contributor...
because instead of earning 19 C wages for their work like we used to do,
we have to adapt to settle for not even $1 when a cup of coffee costs a lot more than what we earn for each photo, music, book,.. we publish.
and the only millionaires are the dudes from fb, ss, etc...

it is not something to celebrate , is it? we all used to have books and vinyls ... organic stuff to hold and read and listen... where we paid the author and musician fair wage because we too earned a fair wage with say $150 for a 5 pix page of photo essay in a local papers in 1988.

how much do you have to make images to earn that much i made in one visit to the papers in 1988...and for that, i was a student photographer and i too had money to buy a nik F and shot 5 rolls of kodachrome a sunday???

Batman · « **Reply #69 on:** April 28, 2015, 18:54 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 17, 2015, 02:14

I had a shock this morning when I discovered no one is forcing me to upload to Shutterstock.......

But IS is forcing me to sell on PP, TS and subs, no opt out. I joined SS knowing they sell subs. I joined IS with canisters, no subs.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I love Shutterstock!! (Read 28357 times)

gbalex

Mantis

Shelma1

gbalex

gbalex

shudderstok

etudiante_rapide

stuttershock

stuttershock

PixelBytes

K2

BaldricksTrousers

Copidosoma

etudiante_rapide

pancaketom

etudiante_rapide

samards

BikeTourist

etudiante_rapide

Batman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors