Just in case you wanted to know how much the "BOSS" cares.

[MSPhotographic]

8 hours ago, Mike Kuhlman said:

And, do tell, how are you doing that?  Website obviously.  How are you marketing?  Are your licenses similar to microstock?

My own site.  And no, my prices are not similar to microstock.

[MSPhotographic]

8 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

My hat off to you! That can't be easy.

It isn't.  But its the only choice at this point

[MSPhotographic]

19 hours ago, Charles Lewis said:

Why would anyone takes their content off Shutterstock? The work has already been done, it costs you nothing to keep it on SS and you still make some money from it. It's an emotional response and not a business one.

Simple.  I've had 10 videos sell for 43 cents in the last two days.  Not only is it not worth it, having my work here at a price that won't even pay to park my car for five minutes, it devalues my work everywhere else too.  Oddlly, other agencies aren't undercutting the market anywhere near as bad and yet I sell more video on the other sites. If I leave it up here, the other agencies will soon cut prices too.  I had planned to just leave my work up here and not give them more, but at this point I feel I need to take it down.  There is simply no point AT ALL in shooting photography for 10 cents or video for 43 cents.  

[Mike Kuhlman]

6 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

My own site.  And no, my prices are not similar to microstock.

Great.  Just want to be clear, what I meant by "prices similar to microstock" is prices similar to microstock RETAIL, prices agencies are charging customers.  Retail prices or higher?  And how are you marketing so customers can find you?

[Tony Dunn]

This boss on twitter sounds like an arrogant moron not fit to be a CEO of anything yet alone an art & photo agency. Does this idiot realise that these pitiful new rates just aren't viable for the majority of contributors. certainly not creating new content. I actualy graduated in graphic art & design in the 80's but in the pre digital era when it was worthwhile . One of the problems though is that the internet with its easy downloads has cheapened digital media & content in which the micro stock agencies are mainly to blame. BUT it gives this new CEO NO RIGHT to take it out on contributors. 

[Thomas Trompeter]

On 6/23/2020 at 4:22 PM, czoborraul said:

Bottom line is, stop being lazy and produce more. Those 0.10& won't sell by themselves.

This Twitter exchange is disturbing to read.

A CEO it at the intersection of 4 interests, that of the customer, contributor, employee and shareholder. A CEO needs to share his vision of where the company is going and communicate it effectively to the 4 groups. The communication with the contributors has been one sided and not informative, leaving a void where speculation happens. A cursory view of the financials shows that the initial dividend was set too high and to maintain it for the next quarter, the rate paid to the contributors was slashed. The resulting actions have been the loss of contributors and reduction in downloads as contributors look for other platforms that will yield a better return. The long term effect on customers will need to be seen and whether the lack of new content moves them to other platforms. At some point, these moves will become material information to the shareholders and will need to be disclosed as risks to the business.

[Fixazh]

Incompetence - main rule in big business. I'm increasingly convinced of that...

He doesn't know his own TOS. He can't talk with suppliers.

[Rudy Umans]

9 hours ago, Tony Dunn said:

This boss on twitter sounds like an arrogant moron not fit to be a CEO of anything yet alone an art & photo agency. Does this idiot realise that these pitiful new rates just aren't viable for the majority of contributors. certainly not creating new content. I actualy graduated in graphic art & design in the 80's but in the pre digital era when it was worthwhile . One of the problems though is that the internet with its easy downloads has cheapened digital media & content in which the micro stock agencies are mainly to blame. BUT it gives this new CEO NO RIGHT to take it out on contributors. 

He is the founder of SS. He alone introduced the subscription model that practically started the microstock industry that changed the image stock market forever (and then some). He created the microstock industry 

He is originally a programmer that wrote, and successfully marketed, a computer security program. He was also a hobbyist photographer. He put 2 and 2 together and Shutterstock was born and in less than 15 years took it to a multi billion dollar company. Hardly a moron I would say. 

And although I do not appreciate this latest move and how and why it was done by Shutterstock, I personally appreciate it even less if people start calling him names. (Or anybody for that matter). 

 

[Fixazh]

On 24.06.2020 at 15:26, Charles Lewis said:

Зачем кому-то брать их контент с Shutterstock? Работа уже сделана, держать ее на SS вам ничего не стоит, и вы все равно зарабатываете на этом деньги. Это эмоциональный ответ, а не деловой

Price discrimination.

[igor.kramar.shots]

On 6/24/2020 at 2:26 PM, Charles Lewis said:

Why would anyone takes their content off Shutterstock? The work has already been done, it costs you nothing to keep it on SS and you still make some money from it. It's an emotional response and not a business one.

I noticed that you are a very modest person, you are happy with everything.

[MSPhotographic]

14 hours ago, Mike Kuhlman said:

Great.  Just want to be clear, what I meant by "prices similar to microstock" is prices similar to microstock RETAIL, prices agencies are charging customers.  Retail prices or higher?  And how are you marketing so customers can find you?

I license only single image, not subscriptions.  Lowest price is on par with single image prices across agencies, $15.  For over 50,000 impressions it doubles.  Work that is highly unique and not just generic stock is more.  I also sell fine art photography.  My art sells in several tiers.  I can't give you exact prices on these because I don't have them.  It varies.  I've had photos sell as art for over $2k but its rare.  I've had stock license for between $800 and $1800.  Again rare but it sure feels good.  Comes down to finding a buyer that isn't a cheapskate and having a photo that is exactly what they need and can't get elsewhere.  Even before I put up the stock section on my site I would have people find my images on google and want to buy from time to time.  On marketing I can't give you a formula.  I don't think running ads would be profitable.  I've had my site on the web over 20 years.  It's #1 on google for several searches.  I also have several other fairly high traffic websites that are like publications and I push people to the stock from there.  I also have a site that I sell LA art from and prices there start at $100.  I can't tell you how well it will pay off, I'm just launching it in earnest now.  I used a plug in called Sell Media on a wordpress site.  If you know WP you will be able to figure it out and take payments through PayPal.   Don't underprice.  At $15 per license I feel it is too low, but on par with the market.  If you were trying to license them at a buck a photo like micro, you would have 35 cents come off the top for transaction fees on each sale and also your marketing costs even if it is in labor.  Also the customer has the advantage of no hassles  They don't have to subscribe etc.  They can deal with a real person if they need to.  That is worth something too.

[Mike Kuhlman]

11 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

I license only single image, not subscriptions.  Lowest price is on par with single image prices across agencies, $15.  For over 50,000 impressions it doubles.  Work that is highly unique and not just generic stock is more.  I also sell fine art photography.  My art sells in several tiers.  I can't give you exact prices on these because I don't have them.  It varies.  I've had photos sell as art for over $2k but its rare.  I've had stock license for between $800 and $1800.  Again rare but it sure feels good.  Comes down to finding a buyer that isn't a cheapskate and having a photo that is exactly what they need and can't get elsewhere.  Even before I put up the stock section on my site I would have people find my images on google and want to buy from time to time.  On marketing I can't give you a formula.  I don't think running ads would be profitable.  I've had my site on the web over 20 years.  It's #1 on google for several searches.  I also have several other fairly high traffic websites that are like publications and I push people to the stock from there.  I also have a site that I sell LA art from and prices there start at $100.  I can't tell you how well it will pay off, I'm just launching it in earnest now.  I used a plug in called Sell Media on a wordpress site.  If you know WP you will be able to figure it out and take payments through PayPal.   Don't underprice.  At $15 per license I feel it is too low, but on par with the market.  If you were trying to license them at a buck a photo like micro, you would have 35 cents come off the top for transaction fees on each sale and also your marketing costs even if it is in labor.  Also the customer has the advantage of no hassles  They don't have to subscribe etc.  They can deal with a real person if they need to.  That is worth something too.

Thanks!

[Paulo Rocha]

21 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

He is the founder of SS. He alone introduced the subscription model that practically started the microstock industry that changed the image stock market forever (and then some). He created the microstock industry 

He is originally a programmer that wrote, and successfully marketed, a computer security program. He was also a hobbyist photographer. He put 2 and 2 together and Shutterstock was born and in less than 15 years took it to a multi billion dollar company. Hardly a moron I would say. 

And although I do not appreciate this latest move and how and why it was done by Shutterstock, I personally appreciate it even less if people start calling him names. (Or anybody for that matter). 

 

He may be a talented professional and a successful business man, but it's becoming evident to anyone that he is showing arrogance, greed, and lack of consideration for the contributors that he should see as partners. Therefore he lost my respect.

[Rudy Umans]

2 hours ago, Paulo Rocha said:

He may be a talented professional and a successful business man, but it's becoming evident to anyone that he is showing arrogance, greed, and lack of consideration for the contributors that he should see as partners. Therefore he lost my respect.

That's your prerogative

I just wanted to remind the poster I replied to that without him, none of us would have been here in the first place, none of us would have had the opportunity to make a few dollars (while it lasted), and only a limited number would have had the chance to enter the image stock market that was in place before microstock to begin with.  

Some of the comments on his twitter account were just uncalled for and he lost it for a moment. So what? I probably would have reacted the same way as he did. We probably all would have if people push you long and hard enough. Just read these forums up to about a few months ago. That should tell you something.  

Regardless, calling somebody (bad) names is always uncalled for.

That's all. Everybody else's opinion might differ. (wouldn't be the first time)

[Thomas Trompeter]

The company's Mission statement gets a meh....

There is no Vision statement.

The Values do not display properly.

An prudent investor will review this information because it is a company's leadership you are investing in along with their decisions and judgement.

 

Shutterstock Mission, Vision & Values

Shutterstock Mission Statement

To connect creative professionals with the best photos, vectors, illustrations and video from thousands of contributors around the world.

Shutterstock Vision Statement

No one has added Shutterstock's vision statement yet.

Shutterstock Values

Modern Flat thin line Icon Set in Business Core Values with word Key Goal,Vision,Connection,Growth,Idea,Commitment,Teamwork,Quality,Integrity.Editable Stroke. Modern Flat thin line Icon Set in Concept of Business Core Values with word Team Work,Growth,Goal,Innovation,Trust,Passion,Connection,Opportunity,Participate.

[alessandro pinto]

On 6/25/2020 at 9:09 PM, Rudy Umans said:

He is the founder of SS. He alone introduced the subscription model that practically started the microstock industry that changed the image stock market forever (and then some). He created the microstock industry 

He is originally a programmer that wrote, and successfully marketed, a computer security program. He was also a hobbyist photographer. He put 2 and 2 together and Shutterstock was born and in less than 15 years took it to a multi billion dollar company. Hardly a moron I would say. 

And although I do not appreciate this latest move and how and why it was done by Shutterstock, I personally appreciate it even less if people start calling him names. (Or anybody for that matter). 

 

some people can be genius at work and a moron in life... especially when they  show no respect for other people while having an argument or a discussion. Usually arrogance and stupidity go together. 

[Brunassaraiva]

People, let's get together and deactivate our portfolios.

We have to press for some change to happen and we will only have strength together.

[balajisrinivasan]

14 hours ago, Rudy Umans said:

That's your prerogative

I just wanted to remind the poster I replied to that without him, none of us would have been here in the first place, none of us would have had the opportunity to make a few dollars (while it lasted), and only a limited number would have had the chance to enter the image stock market that was in place before microstock to begin with.  

Some of the comments on his twitter account were just uncalled for and he lost it for a moment. So what? I probably would have reacted the same way as he did. We probably all would have if people push you long and hard enough. Just read these forums up to about a few months ago. That should tell you something.  

Regardless, calling somebody (bad) names is always uncalled for.

That's all. Everybody else's opinion might differ. (wouldn't be the first time)

Thank you. Earlier, I wrote a comment in this thread trying to say something similar to what you said in your two comments here but deleted it because people were getting (maybe justifiably) very angry and began reacting aggressively. But you've articulated what I wanted to say far better than I could. So very grateful to your rational, level-headed point of view.

[Rudy Umans]

5 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Thank you. Earlier, I wrote a comment in this thread trying to say something similar to what you said in your two comments here but deleted it because people were getting (maybe justifiably) very angry and began reacting aggressively. But you've articulated what I wanted to say far better than I could. So very grateful to your rational, level-headed point of view.

Thank you! That is very kind.

[Lost Mountain Studio]

On 6/25/2020 at 2:04 AM, MSPhotographic said:

 It devalues my work everywhere else 

THIS!

If my work is available here for a fraction of the price of another agency then a customer will likely buy it at the cheapest price.  In this day of image searches it takes pretty much no effort to look for the best deal.

[Rudy Umans]

Hmmm..... I thank somebody for his kindness and that gets downvoted. Hopefully that does not represent the average intelligence level here. 

[Rudy Umans]

4 hours ago, Lost Mountain Studio said:

THIS!

If my work is available here for a fraction of the price of another agency then a customer will likely buy it at the cheapest price.  In this day of image searches it takes pretty much no effort to look for the best deal.

why is IStock not the biggest and largest agency anymore? To my knowledge, nobody is cheaper than them

[MJD Graphics]

39 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

Hmmm..... I thank somebody for his kindness and that gets downvoted. Hopefully that does not represent the average intelligence level here. 

Rudy, this is exactly the average intelligence here I'm afraid to say. In another thread I was downvoted for trying to help someone with a question. I've stopped posting and trying to give my opinion of just about anything. I'm now only occasionally reading some threads as I've given up on SS, not uploading anymore and just occasionally checking if I have any sales, and they have been the last few months few and far between.