Author Topic: Shutterstock expands headquarters while contracting our earnings (Read 28157 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #25 on:** February 14, 2016, 02:39 »

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29

Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07
Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28
Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.

+1

I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………

Ok and whats your solution now?

Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!

Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?

You're wasting your breath. People need to realise that there isn't going to be a time when everything is going to be perfect and we can just put our feet up and relax. We need to keep protesting, opting out, coming up with new sales channels and so on and always will. The result will be just enough for the best of us to survive. That's the market. Everything is always in flux and always will be.

Some people have always been the same way. Doing nothing, complaining, complaining about other people complaining, saying I told you so. I don't think there was ever a time when they didn't know everything "years ago".

Chichikov · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2016, 02:53 »

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29

Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07
Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28
Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.

+1

I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………

Ok and whats your solution now?

Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!

Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?

Maybe because we are older and have an greater experience of life than most of the people here [?] (Of course I cannot speak in the Laurin's name).
"Every good thing starts with an idea". Not really, at first the idea should be a good one…
Your [our] desires do not (always) become reality.
And every bad thing starts with an idea too…

What you think it is good for you [us] and other 100 persons could probably be bad from the point of view of 1 000 000 other persons. So make the math, 100 count nothing…

From my point of view fighting against windmills could be a noble endeavor but it is a waste of time and energy.

utopia
juːˈtəʊpɪə/
noun
an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

r2d2 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2016, 03:11 »

Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:53

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29
Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07

Maybe because we are older and have an greater experience of life than most of the people here [?]

Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times?

CrFx · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2016, 03:48 »

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 03:11

Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:53
Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29
Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07

Maybe because we are older and have an greater experience of life than most of the people here [?]

Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times?

+1 for your signature
No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that.

Chichikov · « **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2016, 04:24 »

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 03:11

Maybe thats one reason. Another could be that the veterans still earn enough money.
But whats your solution?
Only cry a loud about the good old times?

"Only cry a loud about the good old times?"
I am not crying about the old good times… Not at all, never.
But I am not whimpering about the new [bad] times, like many here.

I am aware that the system is not the best today (if any "best" system could exist), but we live longer, we live better (and we lament more and more).

The problem is not a problem of changing prices on Shutterstock's ELs… This is a false problem, or only a very very little part of it.
The problem is too complex to be limited only to Shutterstock's ELs.
This is part of the result of how we have built our whole society. We are part of it, we are responsible of it. Constantly whining is just weakness and hypocrisy.
The problem is a general problem of society. A society based on exploitation of the most for the profit of the less.
The problem is a priority of values in life. (What is really important in life, what we really want in life?)

Money (and their possessors) rules the world, banks rule the world. All is done in the name of God Money…
If you really want to change things, change the system, the whole system…
There is could be a way: make the system to fail, theoretically it is very simple: make the banks fail and the whole system will collapse. Are you ready for this? How many people are ready for it?
If you are, do it. If you are not you can continue to whimper, you will change nothing at all (and fill more depressed).
But, in my opinion, this is another battle against windmills because you cannot fight and win against human nature (that is to be courageous in speech and coward in act).

sharpshot · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2016, 04:42 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 14, 2016, 02:30

Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28
Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.

SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.

skyfish · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2016, 08:55 »

For big agencies it is less expensive to have own images factories for generic keywords. Other niches will be quickly filled in and kept only time when agency needs it to pick up

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2016, 09:25 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 14, 2016, 04:42

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 14, 2016, 02:30
Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28
Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.
What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.
SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.

This should tell you how much they don't care about deactivation, protest, complaints, opt out or individuals. You only hurt yourself by these and staying with micro is riding a sinking ship.

Reading these complaint threads with all the anger year after year, it only gets worse. Protesting here must make somebody in the Empire State Building laugh till they hurt.

If the people making all the money are stock holders, with no dividends, at $28 a share, why don't people complaining here just buy shars and be rich?

stockastic · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2016, 15:35 »

Quote from: Robin@Symbiostock on February 13, 2016, 21:04

They are trading at a P/E of 50, which means their actual stock price should be around $3-$5 based solely on earnings, which means that all of their current market cap is based on future expectations.

This single fact is the key - it shows an unsustainable situation. At some point the big investors will lose patience and demand changes, and if you think things are crazy now, just wait. I have no idea how that would play out, but we can be sure that the situation for contributors will only deteriorate further.

sharpshot · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2016, 16:15 »

I don't think they can squeeze us more than Getty have. I hoped the sites would look at the huge amounts of money they lose from image theft and would do something to improve on that, making them and us a lot more money. Perhaps the new space is for a team to do that

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2016, 16:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 14, 2016, 16:15

I don't think they can squeeze us more than Getty have. I hoped the sites would look at the huge amounts of money they lose from image theft and would do something to improve on that, making them and us a lot more money. Perhaps the new space is for a team to do that

With RF, it's so difficult to do that.
You have to 'guess' which are the legitimate uses, obviously guessing wrong sometimes, so some misuses would be missed and other times you'd be hassling legitimate buyers to prove they had the licence.
E.g. if I'm the buyer/designer, I could, at least in theory, use the same file over and over in work for any number of my clients all over the world.

sharpshot · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2016, 16:46 »

Isn't there a way to put a hidden watermark in images? What does PicScout do? If it can't be done with RF, then maybe RM needs to make a comeback. When the sites have finished reducing the amount we make, they will have to think of something else to keep increasing their profits.

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2016, 17:01 »

iStock/Getty could make a fortune by charging:
1. Those who use images editorially without the required attribution.
2. Those who use editorial images commercially. (Though I'm happy enough if they get mine taken down pronto.)

PixelBytes · « **Reply #38 on:** February 14, 2016, 17:10 »

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29

Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07
Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28
Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.

+1

I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………

Ok and whats your solution now?

Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!

Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?

All these ideas have been tried before and not worked. Don't blame the messenger(s).

Rinderart · « **Reply #39 on:** February 14, 2016, 17:45 »

"No agency should get more than 50% commission and together we can enforce that."

if you knew how many times I said that, You would be amazed. Also. Without some of us Veteran Old timers. You guys would still be making 20 Cents a DL. No EL's,OD's Nothing. We fought Long and hard. I'll still fight for anything and always will. what I won't do is waste time, There no interest guys. It's gone way to far off the rails. And like I said The majority doesn't care and I firmly Believe that. We bitch and Moan and in 3/4 weeks.....History. That ain't the way it was. It's the way it is now. Am I happy about it?. Hell No. Come up with something and I'll be right there. EL's don't account for anything anymore. There history Much ado about nothing. Image preview issue to me is Viral. That really ticked me off.

What am I or you supposed to do. write jon and say 167 Of us out of 70,000 are upset. and were gonna opt out or quit and take down our ports?? Please. ?

Am I giving Up?.....Never

So....How do we get 50% commission from SS and every Other site?...Good question.

I remember as a Old school RM Guy back in 2002/03 when the word about this Micro thing got Out there were huge meetings in LA for traditional Stock shooters and what we were going to do about it. Im telling Ya , there were some very Heated words going On. in 6 Months to a year, Micro Put all these people Out of work. very few Came over.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #40 on:** February 14, 2016, 18:06 »

somebody came up with opting out of Els, did you opt out?

stockastic · « **Reply #41 on:** February 14, 2016, 18:25 »

At some point - and it may not be far off - things will really go south at SS. As per previous posts, their stock price is heading for a cliff. And having spent the last few years systematically devaluing their product, they may not have many options. I like to think there will come a point where meaningful competition - with a different model - could finally get started.

And that's all the optimism I have for today, sorry.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #42 on:** February 14, 2016, 18:27 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on February 14, 2016, 17:10

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29
Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07
Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28
Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.

+1

I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word………

Ok and whats your solution now?

Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!

Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?

All these ideas have been tried before and not worked. Don't blame the messenger(s).

Messengers? Chichikov is right. People just complain and cry but never do anything. Rinderart sends his work to DP and other big crooks for penny's but plays like the big prophet who saw the future. People here do nothing except talk while working for low cheap percentages and sending photos to cheap low paying sites. No wonder the agency don't care. They laugh at us as some small forum discontents.

If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!

Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #43 on:** February 14, 2016, 19:20 »

I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?

I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.

I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.

Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** February 14, 2016, 19:28 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 14, 2016, 19:20

I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?

I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.

I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.

Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.

That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal seller's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.

All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** February 14, 2016, 19:40 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on February 14, 2016, 18:27

If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!
Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?

SS, iS and Ft sell cheap subs.
P5? I have no idea. I can't work out how their credit packages work for buying images. Don't bother telling me, I'm not a buyer and to buy there I'd apparently need to pay in dollars. Is there paid placement there? In one category, most of the top 50 are similars by the same person, then about 50 pics mostly similars by another person, then they seem more random.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #46 on:** February 14, 2016, 20:01 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 14, 2016, 19:28

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 14, 2016, 19:20
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?

I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.

I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.

Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.

That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal er's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.

All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.

Im probably not going to pull the plug on SS or micro. I'm just leaving my old simple stuff there that nobody is willing to pay more than a couple dollars for. I moved all of my stuff thats proven to sell well at higher amounts and as art prints to my site and I don't offer resale licensing options. And for the stuff i have on Alamy as RM I restrict any resale options. I sell 32x48 canvas for $600. If they can buy the image for $1 on micro or even $50 on Alamy and print it themselves why would they buy my $600 print? They won't. Even on my own site i set my RM decor print licensing to end up being the same price if they buy the print or buy the download and print it themselves. I get that all the time "$600 for the print? Oh ok how about I just buy the image and print it myself? $450 for the download? Thats not really any cheaper". Nope it's not. Exactly.

stockastic · « **Reply #47 on:** February 14, 2016, 20:09 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 14, 2016, 20:01

Quote from: stockastic on February 14, 2016, 19:28
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 14, 2016, 19:20
I was at a Target store earlier. Saw a framed canvas 16x24 print of a city for $35. Turned it over and it had a Shutterstock copyright on the back. If the SS customer actually bothered to buy an extended resale license the contributor got probably $25 total. The print was made in China and probably cost a few US dollars to make. I have no idea what Target's profit would be but I'm guessing $5-10 a print. Even if they sold one per month at each of their 2,000 stores that would be several hundred thousand dollars a year in profit from one print. Comparatively the contributor probably will make less than .0001% over several years of sales. That seems like a pretty bad deal for the contributor and even SS. But it's not SS's fault. The contributor provided them with the image. It's not Target's fault. SS and the contributor provided the insanely cheap option. If you could pay $100 for something and make $250,000 a year from it, who wouldn't?

I've been saying for a while that licensing needs to change. I think a good place to start is to change to single-use licenses. This all you can eat subscription stuff will eventually implode for both sites and contributors. Current prices are ridiculously cheap so is it really asking too much to pay a couple dollars for a single use license instead of the you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-it-indefinately model? RedBox vs Netflix.

I'm doing something. On my site I came up with a simplified RM license based mostly on duration so a buyer doesn't need to go through the traditional RM maze. RF simplicity with RM rights control. Pricing is in the $25-$2000 range with $200 being about the normal amount for commercial use. This is a single-use single-company license. I know who every buyer is so now I can easily spot and pursue infringements which is almost impossible with RF. So far it's working well.

Life's too short to be angry. Turn the anger into something productive.

That's a perfect example of where things have ended up. Our slice of the actual, total 'pie' is probably so small we'd be shocked - even today - if we found out. A guy can buy my photo on SS and sell it on FAA, right against me. He can even stuff it with spam keywords, and because FAA's search rank is based on a seller's volume - not even the sales of the particular image, just the overal er's numbers - he could outrank me in search and get the sales instead of me.

All of this has to end. I'm really close to pulling the plug on SS.

Im probably not going to pull the plug on SS or micro. I'm just leaving my old simple stuff there that nobody is willing to pay more than a couple dollars for. I moved all of my stuff thats proven to sell well at higher amounts and as art prints to my site and I don't offer resale licensing options. And for the stuff i have on Alamy as RM I restrict any resale options. I sell 32x48 canvas for $600. If they can buy the image for $1 on micro or even $50 on Alamy and print it themselves why would they buy my $600 print? They won't. Even on my own site i set my RM decor print licensing to end up being the same price if they buy the print or buy the download and print it themselves. I get that all the time "$600 the print? Oh ok how about I just buy the image and print it myself? $450 for the download? Thats not really any cheaper". Nope it's not. Exactly.

That all makes sense, and actually, I'm already doing it. I stopped putting new photos on SS a year and a half ago, forgot about stock and just did photos I liked. I'm a pretty small fish with no marketing but I make a few sales on FAA and I'm hoping to build on that. SS will never get another photo from me.

angelawaye · « **Reply #49 on:** February 14, 2016, 23:05 »

I have opted out of EL's. I am slowly moving to RM and Macro but the problem I am having is that I'm use to seeing day-to-day profits and with the RM, the wait can be difficult. I will definitely need to get use to that.

I think the continued decrease of our "cut" will not stop. Soon our downloads will be 10-5 cents each for subs. I'm planning now to do something before the ship sinks.

I'm not surprised about the Target print. I often find myself looking for the small print ...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock expands headquarters while contracting our earnings (Read 28157 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Chichikov

r2d2

CrFx

Chichikov

sharpshot

skyfish

YadaYadaYada

stockastic

sharpshot

ShadySue

sharpshot

ShadySue

PixelBytes

Rinderart

Microstockphoto

stockastic

YadaYadaYada

PaulieWalnuts

stockastic

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

stockastic

Symbiostock Official

angelawaye

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors