Meanwhile, over at Shutterstock...

[Bill Brooks]

For some time market analysts have been concerned that SS has run out of options for driving future profits. Whats next? Buy a rival? Raise prices? Sell software, music, or RM? Nothing seems to be available. This negative view of SS future prospects, could result in the value of investors SS shares being worth a lot less.

 

SS executives are big investors in SS. So if the value of the SS shares drop, then SS executives will see their net worth plummet.

 

The cut in photographers commission will drive profits next year, without a lot of collateral damage to the overall SS collection. The collection will still look the same, clients will not care.

 

So this lowering of photographer's commission only confirms stock market analysts negative view of SS prospects. There is not much else SS can do to drive profits, except lower the photographer's commission.

 

It would seem that a downward spiral is starting. Not because of photographer's ire, but because SS is a mature business and has run out of expansion options. The future SS prospects do not justify the higher price of the shares today.

 

I will be looking to see if, while preserving the price of shares in the short term through the commission cut, SS executives start to sell some of their overpriced shares.

 

This has nothing to do with SS photographers being happy, angry, or stupid. It is about the value of the SS shares.
 

[Betty LaRue]

There was a time in the distant past when Alamy requested we not upload excessive similars. I can’t remember the most suggested, but it seems no more than 5 from the same shoot with obvious differences that were readily noticeable. It seems like I remember they said they would enforce it, but maybe not. I’m testing the cobwebs in my brain.

That may have fallen by the wayside with agencies dumping their content with excessive similars into Alamy. How can you enforce something to us regulars and allow “johnnie-come-latelies” to do as they please?

Maybe when they allowed agencies images here, the agencies should have been requested to cull them first, following the rules.
 

I do remember when I made searches, sometimes a whole page would be taken up with one persons similar images. I applaud the day when Alamy scrambled those up to appear on different pages. The downside to it was that if you submitted 3 similars with one being your best, Murphy’s Law deemed your best to be the one on the farthest page. What that did for me was make me go back into my 5 image sets and delete two, leaving 3 “best”.

That said, if I had occasional sets of five, say of a piece of cake, one would be horizontal, one vertical, one without a fork, one with, and a zoom out with more copy space, as a for instance. None looked identical and never had to be studied to tell the difference between them. When you have closeups and zoomed outs, verticals and horizontals, changes in placemat colors, etc, it’s easy to have 5 of the same subject.

Betty

[Autumn Sky]

13 minutes ago, Martyn said:

 

How about purging all of the collections imported from other agencies that have those same images on multiple agencies and instead promote the exclusive images that individual contributors have here  and nowhere else .... 

Great idea  (and a green arrow )

But this is for Alamy...  micros swamp problem, that is dragging down the industry as a whole, still remains

[Martyn]

Just now, Autumn Sky said:

Great idea  (and a green arrow )

But this is for Alamy...  micros swamp problem, that is dragging down the industry as a whole, still remains

 

Agree with you on this ... but what can be done .. just have to hope that maybe the whole micro system will implode as clients start to show a preference towards unique instead of cheap ! Maybe wishful thinking but nothing surprises me anymore !

I absolutely do not agree with culling images that have not sold in the last twelve months though ... I and many others have been adding for a long time and that adds up to a lot of work ... I would not be happy if these started being removed on that basis alone !

As an example, this image has just been licensed for the first time and was shot in 1996 !!

[Phil]

19 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

SS executives are big investors in SS. So if the value of the SS shares drop, then SS executives will see their net worth plummet.

 

 

In this vein - there is an interesting comment in the ms group regarding SS new CEO's compensation package:

 

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/stan-pavlovsky-ceo-shutterstock-and-why-this-is-all-happening/

[Autumn Sky]

12 minutes ago, Martyn said:

 

Agree with you on this ... but what can be done .. just have to hope that maybe the whole micro system will implode as clients start to show a preference towards unique instead of cheap ! Maybe wishful thinking but nothing surprises me anymore !

I absolutely do not agree with culling images that have not sold in the last twelve months though ... I and many others have been adding for a long time and that adds up to a lot of work ... I would not be happy if these started being removed on that basis alone !

As an example, this image has just been licensed for the first time and was shot in 1996 !!

 

again, Alamy is different ... highly editorial ( and nowhere as spammed as micros) so  cleanup/promotion rules are different too.   This boat image (great one too) illustrates the issue well.

 

I don't think system will implode as a whole completely ... it will only keep sinking lower and lower.  At a time, IS was huge earner.  Then they slashed compensation to 15%.  Huge revolt and resentment.   Flock over to SS.  SS is king.  But someone said wisely "Just wait till SS turns on its contributors as well".   Nobody believed, but it just happened.  Tomorrow will be 1st day of 10cents/pop sales over there,  even for long time contributors.  Etc. 

 

Problem is that all this impacts Alamy.  There is reason why compensations here went from 60% to 50% to 40%.  

 

I repeat again, micros are, in large part, spammed swamp -- and until cleanup happens it will only get worse.  (And now I turn tail before I draw more ire of this forum on me   It shows it's raining over here lol)

[Martyn]

4 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

 

again, Alamy is different ... highly editorial ( and nowhere as spammed as micros) so  cleanup/promotion rules are different too.   This boat image (great one too) illustrates the issue well.

 

I don't think system will implode as a whole completely ... it will only keep sinking lower and lower.  At a time, IS was huge earner.  Then they slashed compensation to 15%.  Huge revolt and resentment.   Flock over to SS.  SS is king.  But someone said wisely "Just wait till SS turns on its contributors as well".   Nobody believed, but it just happened.  Tomorrow will be 1st day of 10cents/pop sales over there,  even for long time contributors.  Etc. 

 

Problem is that all this impacts Alamy.  There is reason why compensations here went from 60% to 50% to 40%.  

 

I repeat again, micros are, in large part, spammed swamp -- and until cleanup happens it will only get worse.  (And now I turn tail before I draw more ire of this forum on me   It shows it's raining over here lol)

 

It's an industry in turmoil for sure and changes are ongoing still ... hang on tight, the rough ride continues ... !

 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Martyn said:

 

Agree with you on this ... but what can be done ..

 

Frankly very little IMO except lowering your operating costs/time to produce images.   Signing petitions, dreaming about stock contrib unions, disabling/removing portfolios, etc are feel-good actions that have little if any long term meaningful effect on public and privately owned stock platforms..

 

My take is if individuals desire to go forward being stock contributors in any meaningful fashion that returns the best from their efforts from most stock platforms you will need to be a low-cost image supplier.  

 

Lower your investment in capital and time needed to produce acceptable images for stock.   Fewer new camera or computer hardware/software purchases/upgrades.  Fewer or no more shooting RAW images with their post production hardware/software and processing time requirements. Shoot and submit the best OOC JPGs.  More post processing is money spent that means lower return on investment.  Find faster and more effective keywording tools/methods, etc. 

 

 

[losdemas]

7 hours ago, Martyn said:

 

Unfortunately, that was the unique USP at Alamy until, for reasons best known to themselves, they started to import complete collections from other agencies ....

 

Fair point.

[Autumn Sky]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Frankly very little IMO except lowering your operating costs/time to produce images.   Signing petitions, dreaming about stock contrib unions, disabling/removing portfolios, etc are feel-good actions that have little if any long term meaningful effect on public and privately owned stock platforms..

 

My take is if individuals desire to go forward being stock contributors in any meaningful fashion that returns the best from their efforts from most stock platforms you will need to be a low-cost image supplier.  

 

Lower your investment in capital and time needed to produce acceptable images for stock.   Fewer new camera or computer hardware/software purchases/upgrades.  Fewer or no more shooting RAW images with their post production hardware/software and processing time requirements. Shoot and submit the best OOC JPGs.  More post processing is money spent that means lower return on investment.  Find faster and more effective keywording tools/methods, etc. 

 

 

Phil - I agree with most everything you said (specially about fruitless 'unions', stop uploading protests, etc). But this is from contributor perspective.  Problem is elsewhere.   Everyone agrees stock was place to be 10-12 yrs ago, right? Why isn't that now? Because of hyper inflated competition, largely sub-standard, that micros allowed to propagate and create bottomless pit.  We can't fight that, and we can't change way of thinking and lack of desire to turn the wheel in SS, IS etc.

 

But, even if this is academic, smart business philosophy would IMHO be to focus on quality. How to do it - cleanups, strict QC, etc - is separate discussion and maybe even different from company to company, based on specialization. But once you have that 'lean and mean' library free of duplicates, spammed low quality content etc etc  customers will flock over.  It is not coincidental Adobe is now best micro around by a margin, specially after this SS debacle.

[losdemas]

4 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

<SNIP>

 

This has nothing to do with SS photographers being happy, angry, or stupid. It is about the value of the SS shares.
 

 

Well, yes, it is operating in the modern capitalist model that that says that if your business doesn't continue to grow, year on year (hopefully exponentially), then your business is a failed business. Which, frankly, to my mind, is a total nonsense. Businesses should of course adapt or change with time or where necessary and grow according to need or desire. But for business size to be the ultimate determinant of success?

 

But I'm treading on shaky ground here, I know. Talking economics (about which I know next to zero), which tends to be tied closely to politics...and veering off subject. I'll say no more.

[MizBrown]

6 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

Yes.  And problem is not easy to solve, mainly because of years and years of dumping of sub-par content  (I am talking micros).   I firmly believe 12 month and out if no sale is the right approach.  If contributor believes image is good and has potential,  they can always re-submit.  But now it would go through  strict QC rules - and not AI approval, now more and more gaining speed.  This is how you clean up.  

 

Then you can also start charging more, and give more to contributors as well.  Because you sell quality and one gets what he pays for

 

This reminds me too much of the people who argue that my books should be out of copyright now since I should have earned enough money from them in some shorter period of years than my life time plus whatever it is now.  I kinda like having that extra $100 to $200 a year from royalties on the ebooks.   

 

If you're selling everything you upload within a year, that's very nice, but some people are uploading fairly specialized things -- and my fish brought more money than anything else I've uploaded.  And some of what's been licensed for better than $ weren't brilliant photos, particularly, just something nobody else had.

 

Storage space isn't particularly a major expense these days.

Edited June 1, 2020 by MizBrown

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Frankly very little IMO except lowering your operating costs/time to produce images.   Signing petitions, dreaming about stock contrib unions, disabling/removing portfolios, etc are feel-good actions that have little if any long term meaningful effect on public and privately owned stock platforms..

 

My take is if individuals desire to go forward being stock contributors in any meaningful fashion that returns the best from their efforts from most stock platforms you will need to be a low-cost image supplier.  

 

Lower your investment in capital and time needed to produce acceptable images for stock.   Fewer new camera or computer hardware/software purchases/upgrades.  Fewer or no more shooting RAW images with their post production hardware/software and processing time requirements. Shoot and submit the best OOC JPGs.  More post processing is money spent that means lower return on investment.  Find faster and more effective keywording tools/methods, etc. 

 

 

 

This has become my approach, spend as little as possible. For instance, I only buy used lenses and do very little travelling. I'm also using free RAW processing software and an ancient version of PS Elements. I recently bought a refurbished DELL tower to replace my Windows 7 machine. It cost so little that I'm embarrassed to say the amount. Of course being cheap by nature helps a lot...

 

 

[John Mitchell]

15 minutes ago, losdemas said:

 

Well, yes, it is operating in the modern capitalist model that that says that if your business doesn't continue to grow, year on year (hopefully exponentially), then your business is a failed business. Which, frankly, to my mind, is a total nonsense. Businesses should of course adapt or change with time or where necessary and grow according to need or desire. But for business size to be the ultimate determinant of success?

 

But I'm treading on shaky ground here, I know. Talking economics (about which I know next to zero), which tends to be tied closely to politics...and veering off subject. I'll say no more.

 

I have a feeling that the current pandemic could change a lot of prevailing attitudes in the business world. Capitalism may never be the same again, which is a good thing IMO. The "small [or at least smaller] is beautiful" philosophy may yet prove to be the way of the future.

Edited June 1, 2020 by John Mitchell

[losdemas]

 

5 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

There was a time in the distant past when Alamy requested we not upload excessive similars. I can’t remember the most suggested, but it seems no more than 5 from the same shoot with obvious differences that were readily noticeable. It seems like I remember they said they would enforce it, but maybe not. I’m testing the cobwebs in my brain.

That may have fallen by the wayside with agencies dumping their content with excessive similars into Alamy. How can you enforce something to us regulars and allow “johnnie-come-latelies” to do as they please?

 

You're quite right, few similars definitely was a requirement in days gone by - I see nothing in the guidelines about it now. Though I always have - and will continue to abide by  the rule - if only in my self-interest! Another thing that was probably dropped because it was unenforceable: additional workload for the QC team and, as you say, the dumping of content by other agencies.

 

5 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Maybe when they allowed agencies images here, the agencies should have been requested to cull them first, following the rules.

 

Yup - too late now, I guess? Though rules can always be changed..

 

5 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I do remember when I made searches, sometimes a whole page would be taken up with one persons similar images. I applaud the day when Alamy scrambled those up to appear on different pages. The downside to it was that if you submitted 3 similars with one being your best, Murphy’s Law deemed your best to be the one on the farthest page. What that did for me was make me go back into my 5 image sets and delete two, leaving 3 “best”.

 

Yes, that was a good move. And unfortunately, there were (are?) drawbacks. Always possible (advisable?) though to upload the images in separate batches over a period of time?

5 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

That said, <SNIP> it’s easy to have 5 of the same subject.

 

Indeed.

[MizBrown]

One thing is chasing images that thousands of other people chase.  I found exteriors photos of every church in Nicaragua in all areas that get any tourism at all.  Pointless to shoot them, then, unless I can do something more dramatic, more unique than pro photographers who've already been through.   One Mexican photo out of dozens was licensed.  What has worked for me were plants and fish more than anything else.   Those were fish in my tanks and plants in my patio or plants I'd photographed years ago.  One license for a deaf kid signing in a home for the deaf a couple blocks away. 

 

A friend majored in photography and worked for a while doing wedding and bar mitzvas before turning to computer work.  He said that the money was in fashion, combat photography, and a few other things.  The things everyone finds fun to do are over-saturated.  I'm not going to buy a 600mm lens and do birds and wildlife because any number of other people who took earlier retirements than I did are happy to do that.  It's fun, so the category is way over saturated.  It's easy to take photos of churches, so that market is saturated unless you're considerably better than any other photographer out there.

 

Some of this is a question of how good does an image have to be.  Weekly newspaper writing doesn't have to be that good, and the expense of publishing is less flexible than wages for a novice reporter.  How good a photo does a site need and how inflexible are their other costs?  And a lot of them want to pay in ego strokes.  Most poetry publication these days is also in ego strokes and tenure trading stamps.

Edited June 1, 2020 by MizBrown

[losdemas]

5 hours ago, Phil said:

 

In this vein - there is an interesting comment in the ms group regarding SS new CEO's compensation package:

 

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/stan-pavlovsky-ceo-shutterstock-and-why-this-is-all-happening/

 

Working my way through this, but the first post pretty much says it all. Not entirely sure about the reference to Julius Caesar tho' (I'll review my history later)?!

 

Love this in the second post: "I suggest the CEO and the entire management team take their own medicine and every January first have their salaries reset to an absolute minimum monthly value." 😂

[losdemas]

5 hours ago, Martyn said:

 

<SNIP> just have to hope that maybe the whole micro system will implode as clients start to show a preference towards unique instead of cheap ! <SNIP>

I absolutely do not agree with culling images that have not sold in the last twelve months though ... I and many others have been adding for a long time and that adds up to a lot of work ... I would not be happy if these started being removed on that basis alone !

As an example, this image has just been licensed for the first time and was shot in 1996 !!

 

1. Can't see this happening on enough of a large scale, especially given the dreadful state this world is currently in.
2. Too true

[Phil]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 The "small [or at least smaller] is beautiful" philosophy may yet prove to be the way of the future.

 

One can only hope....

 

The monopolistic consolidation and buyouts of smaller stock agencies/libraries by the big/bigger ones over past years seems mostly to have ground to a halt.  I suppose they've swallowed all they deemed worthy.    This leaves the big guys to do as they pretty well please with no significant alternative opportunities for image suppliers.  It's now mostly a choice of being an agency supplier with either low or lower image production investment returns.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Autumn Sky]

11 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I firmly believe this cannot be the right approach for Alamy considering the very nature of the collection.

 

Of course not. Seems lot of people misunderstood; I was talking about micros cleanup.   If 1000th similar image of common flower (or alike) can not make 10cents in a year, it's probably an indicator of a low sale potential that can be phased out.

 

Along these lines, Adobe would not even accept images of flowers "unless they were exceptional". They also don't allow editorial submission, until your port passed 1000 downloads. This policy can be debated one way or the other, but fact remains they have emerged as best micro out there. For how long it remains to be seen

 

[geogphotos]

In my opinion , and that is rarely popular with micro-stock folk, Alamy made a big mistake when they allowed non-Ex RF images from micro-stocks ( they could have made a list of agencies).

 

Then again here we are talking about what agencies should and shouldn't do when really we are just contributors and can only do what we can do with our own images etc

 

But there is still away of making sure that your own images are never confused with those that could be available elsewhere for micro prices. A very easy way.

 

Use RM.

[Autumn Sky]

13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

In my opinion , and that is rarely popular with micro-stock folk, Alamy made a big mistake when they allowed non-Ex RF images from micro-stocks ( they could have made a list of agencies).

 

Then again here we are talking about what agencies should and shouldn't do when really we are just contributors and can only do what we can do with our own images etc

 

But there is still away of making sure that your own images are never confused with those that could be available elsewhere for micro prices. A very easy way.

 

Use RM.

 

These are 3 great points & I fully agree.   But, in regard to point 2),  question is:  How do you, as contributor, manage your assets in best possible way?   No single answer works for everyone. I even started separate thread about this awhile ago.  I'd be more than happy to be 100% Alamy exclusive but sales are simply too few and far in between.  Last month I had first zero sales month in a long time here, and quite decent month in micros, best in long time despite pandemic.  

 

btw,  as this is "Meanwhile on Shutterstock" thread --- first day at least so far benefited me.   Sub sale that would have been 33 cents in old system paid 2.45.  Ya it's all peanuts but it is 8 times more if you look strictly numbers.  Plenty of 10 cents sales according to their forum though and tons of disgruntled contributors;  should be interesting till it settles down.

[M.Chapman]

21 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

btw,  as this is "Meanwhile on Shutterstock" thread --- first day at least so far benefited me.   Sub sale that would have been 33 cents in old system paid 2.45.  Ya it's all peanuts but it is 8 times more if you look strictly numbers. 

 

Same here, first sales under the new SS commission structure may have been good for me too. It's too early to draw reliable conclusions, as it all depends on what type of customer is buying the image, and there are some gremlins in SS categorisation of the sales in the sales report ATM. If a customer is on the biggest bulk subscription deal, then it's not good at all ($0.10/sale), but if sales are to those with smaller subscription deals, the revenue per sale can be higher than the $0.25/sale they used to give. Watching developments with interest....

 

Mark

[Autumn Sky]

Great to hear that Mark.   I think new system actually might end as improvement, if reset was to 12 month rolling total and not ground zero.

I'd rather see decent Alamy sale though   Fingers crossed

[John Mitchell]

27 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Same here, first sales under the new SS commission structure may have been good for me too. It's too early to draw reliable conclusions, as it all depends on what type of customer is buying the image, and there are some gremlins in SS categorisation of the sales in the sales report ATM. If a customer is on the biggest bulk subscription deal, then it's not good at all ($0.10/sale), but if sales are to those with smaller subscription deals, the revenue per sale can be higher than the $0.25/sale they used to give. Watching developments with interest....

 

Mark

 

Don't know if you noticed, but the "Sell Content" tab disappeared (here anyway) from the top of their homepage a few days before the big announcement. I thought something must be in the works when I saw that. Sellers now have to scroll down to the bottom of the page in order to log in. I'm not sure what the logic is behind this change, especially if they want to attract new contributors and "thin the herd" of old ones.

Edited June 1, 2020 by John Mitchell