pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Shutterstock replacing iStock as the agency everyone loves to hate?  (Read 2882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 09, 2018, 22:43 »
+1
I'm not seeing a lot of love for Shutterstock right now.




« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2018, 23:19 »
0
Ditto

« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2018, 00:24 »
+2
People love to bite the hand that fed them
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 00:27 by Chichikov »

« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2018, 00:59 »
0
"Some people will only check on you just to see if you have failed yet.
Nope, I'm still winning!" - Shutterstock

« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2018, 01:00 »
+16
SS is making some some pretty awful decisions, that are damaging the income of a lot of photographers at the moment and making us predict that things may go bad for SS too in the future.

For example, the review process has become a complete joke:

- It has become almost random in their approvals and rejections. Images that are rejected for stupid reasons are almost guaranteed to be approved on a second submission. It makes everybody lose time.

- The quality level demand has dropped to zero. There are thousands of images approved daily that are appalling. Amateur to the worst level. You name every error anyone can make on a photo and they are approved.

- Similar images do not seem to be an issue anymore. In the past days there was a portfolio with hundreds of thousands of images where each object was submitted with a 1 degree difference in point of view. And that for every angle possible.

So, any photographer who tries to produce varied, high quality imagery (even if just an apple on white), and pics just the good images from a sessions to submit gets buried under all that.

It's not biting the hand that feeds us has it's said earlier. It's stating the obvious errors SS is making, which are making it to be an agency going from a high quality imagery shop to becoming the garbage landfill of stock agencies.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 00:28 by MicroVet »

« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2018, 01:24 »
0
SS is making some some pretty awful decisions, that are damaging the income of a lot of photographers at the moment and making us predict that things make go bad for SS too in the future.

For example, the review process has become a complete joke:

- It has become almost random in their approvals and rejections. Images that are rejected for stupid reasons are almost guaranteed to be approved on a second submission. It makes everybody lose time.

- The quality level demand has dropped to zero. There are thousands of images approved daily that are appalling. Amateur to the worst level. You name every error anyone can make on a photo and they are approved.

- Similar images do not seem to be an issue anymore. In the past days there was a portfolio with hundreds of thousands of images where each object was submitted with a 1 degree difference in point of view. And that for every angle possible.

So, any photographer who tries to produce varied, high quality imagery (even if just an apple on white), and pics just the good images from a sessions to submit gets buried under all that.

It's not biting the hand that feeds us has it's said earlier. It's stating the obvious errors SS is making, which are making it to be an agency going from a high quality imagery shop to becoming the garbage landfill of stock agencies.

Its a new Admin a new order and agenda!  Their internal staff problems are huge even according to themselves. The prior global head of content left in disgust and there are probbly much more to follow!....these are the criteria that sooner or later break any corp!

« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2018, 01:44 »
0
Some people have hated them for an awfully long time but not enough to act on their high principles and withdraw their portfolios. I think they are not being particularly well run at this time but I don't see that as a reason to hate.

« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2018, 02:03 »
+2
I can't hate them as much as istock because they still pay me much more than istock ever did.  What I hate more is the people that constantly complained about istock, while doing nothing about it.  Some people were probably complaining here while they were uploading.  Many of us stopped uploading, deleted images and eventually closed our accounts.  That was the only way to hurt istock and at least make the other sites give us a bit more respect.

« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2018, 03:10 »
+1
We all have seen bad contributor relations with iStock and not all are happy.
I don't find a reason to hate SS, they are still my top earner.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2018, 03:46 »
0
That was the only way to hurt istock and at least make the other sites give us a bit more respect.

How do you figure that?

« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2018, 05:27 »
+1
We are 10. of the month and we only earned 15% of what we usually earn with SS. This is really bad.

« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2018, 05:33 »
0
Some people were probably complaining here while they were uploading.  Many of us stopped uploading, deleted images and eventually closed our accounts.  That was the only way to hurt istock and at least make the other sites give us a bit more respect.

I understand what you are saying, but even in small companies people can't get a few dozen workers, who know and see each other every single day, united on a common goal.

How would you expect a mass organized action based on MSG alone where only a small fraction of photographers come, on a global scale, between people that have never met, have absolutely different goals (professional/amateurs), different income expectations where some need 3000 to live and others are kings with 500, different points of view on the subject, etc.

The only way to change an agency politics on this type of business is to threaten their income through competition. Or have the means to launch a persistent major campaign worldwide. And have the money to fight the agency lawyers who will try to sue you for defamation.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 00:31 by MicroVet »

« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2018, 05:53 »
0
I can't hate them as much as istock because they still pay me much more than istock ever did.  What I hate more is the people that constantly complained about istock, while doing nothing about it.  Some people were probably complaining here while they were uploading.  Many of us stopped uploading, deleted images and eventually closed our accounts.  That was the only way to hurt istock and at least make the other sites give us a bit more respect.


Yes, that is what I hate about people constantly complaining about a site. Their famous line is I am not going to be giving them any more of my images. So the stock sites business ethics are so disgusting that they will complain and complain and complain, but they will still let the site continue to stick it to them. They dont want to give up those pennies, because after all, a penny is better than nothing right? Even if they suck, right?


The funny thing is, two of the things most complained about is the massive numbers of contributors now, and the lack of decent sales. So if you dump a site altogether, you arent actually losing all that much money, are you?

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2018, 05:53 »
+1
I can't hate them as much as istock because they still pay me much more than istock ever did.  What I hate more is the people that constantly complained about istock, while doing nothing about it.  Some people were probably complaining here while they were uploading.  Many of us stopped uploading, deleted images and eventually closed our accounts.  That was the only way to hurt istock and at least make the other sites give us a bit more respect.
I've always seen it slightly differently. iS were trying to raise prices but SS weren't.
iS could see that people were willing to accept 25c/38c for an image, (I accept the average was higher than that) so they could start * us about too.
I know other people are more focussed on 'total earnings', but SS not raising prices when iS did hurt all of us, when they were the top two by miles.
Still, there would always have been someone offering lower prices.

The title should be: Is Shutterstock joining iStock as an agency everyone loves to hate.

When  I was a really wee girl, we had a skipping game.
One girl jumped in, and the verse went (using real names of girls):
"Vote, vote, vote for Sandra NiceGirl" (other girl jumps in and they skip together)
"In jumps Sally at the door
She is the one that we all love best
And we don't love Sandra any more.
<shouted:>CLOSE THE DOOR" (first girl jumps out).
And the game went on, Vote, vote, vote for Sally Nextgirl" ... etc

Who knew at that age it was based on real life?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 06:13 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2018, 05:56 »
0
Yes, that is what I hate about people constantly complaining about a site. Their famous line is I am not going to be giving them any more of my images. So the stock sites business ethics are so disgusting that they will complain and complain and complain, but they will still let the site continue to stick it to them. They dont want to give up those pennies, because after all, a penny is better than nothing right? Even if they suck, right?
Which of the micros do you feel has overall good business ethics? (remembering that this is a microstock site, so don't name macros)
IMO, none of them.
And we all have shown that we each have different levels of what we are prepared to tolerate. Or different 'issues' make us more angry than others feel about that issue.

« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2018, 06:05 »
0
I really dont think anybody hates any agency since its business and well you know what they say anything goes and all game is fair etc, etc.. I think what bugs many especially old-timers is that they know something is wrong not guessing but after many years they simply know by comparissons and hundreds/thousands of friends who are in the same boat.
SS have become totally blase and dont care anymore no matter how obvious they just dont care. I doubt very much they even care about share-holders either. Just plodding along in the same antique ways.

« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2018, 06:29 »
+1
People don't like some of the decisions SS is making but that's very different to hating them for a long history of contributor abuse like IStock. So SS is mainly disliked for not making as much money for people as they once did, but that is hurting them as well as us so in that regard isn't intentional. Getty has been actively squeezing contributors forever in a way that SS just hasn't.

But what I am most confused by is the hatred of 123rf, which have one of the highest RPDs and which pay a minimum of 30% up to 60% and 50%+ actually obtainable for professional contributors.


« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2018, 06:44 »
+4
I'm not seeing a lot of love for Shutterstock right now.

People forget how awful iStock is because they don't have access to live download stats to build their conspiracies on and to be constantly reminded about that insulting 15% or less revenue share.

Less transparency = less negativity, smart move from IS?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 06:50 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2018, 06:55 »
0
People don't like some of the decisions SS is making but that's very different to hating them for a long history of contributor abuse like IStock. So SS is mainly disliked for not making as much money for people as they once did, but that is hurting them as well as us so in that regard isn't intentional. Getty has been actively squeezing contributors forever in a way that SS just hasn't.

But what I am most confused by is the hatred of 123rf, which have one of the highest RPDs and which pay a minimum of 30% up to 60% and 50%+ actually obtainable for professional contributors.
Thats way above what I achieve there...I don't hate them but very disappointed that sales and commissions have gone backwards there.

« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2018, 07:01 »
0
People don't like some of the decisions SS is making but that's very different to hating them for a long history of contributor abuse like IStock. So SS is mainly disliked for not making as much money for people as they once did, but that is hurting them as well as us so in that regard isn't intentional. Getty has been actively squeezing contributors forever in a way that SS just hasn't.

But what I am most confused by is the hatred of 123rf, which have one of the highest RPDs and which pay a minimum of 30% up to 60% and 50%+ actually obtainable for professional contributors.
Thats way above what I achieve there...I don't hate them but very disappointed that sales and commissions have gone backwards there.

Agree, disappointed with sales, but still far better than iStock (who do shady business). SS also shares there quarterly reports and is more transparent than others.

« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2018, 07:40 »
0
People don't like some of the decisions SS is making but that's very different to hating them for a long history of contributor abuse like IStock. So SS is mainly disliked for not making as much money for people as they once did, but that is hurting them as well as us so in that regard isn't intentional. Getty has been actively squeezing contributors forever in a way that SS just hasn't.

But what I am most confused by is the hatred of 123rf, which have one of the highest RPDs and which pay a minimum of 30% up to 60% and 50%+ actually obtainable for professional contributors.
Thats way above what I achieve there...I don't hate them but very disappointed that sales and commissions have gone backwards there.

Agree! strange though for me as SS went down ( old timer) Istock went way, way up!  and sort of evend out the difference.

« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2018, 07:47 »
0
People don't like some of the decisions SS is making but that's very different to hating them for a long history of contributor abuse like IStock. So SS is mainly disliked for not making as much money for people as they once did, but that is hurting them as well as us so in that regard isn't intentional. Getty has been actively squeezing contributors forever in a way that SS just hasn't.

But what I am most confused by is the hatred of 123rf, which have one of the highest RPDs and which pay a minimum of 30% up to 60% and 50%+ actually obtainable for professional contributors.
Thats way above what I achieve there...I don't hate them but very disappointed that sales and commissions have gone backwards there.


Agree! strange though for me as SS went down ( old timer) Istock went way, way up!  and sort of evend out the difference.
Just to clarify I was talking about rf123.

« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2018, 08:50 »
+1
All the agencies are pretty much all the same. They are an impediment to making a better living, but better than making nothing. Until they are the same as making nothing, then nothing will change.

« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2018, 10:57 »
+1
SS haven't changed in years so the hate stems from mainly competition. I don't see any reason to hate SS since they haven't been reducing contributor royalties. They've been consistent if anything else. Sure, you can say they've been accepting everything and flooding the market with new images, but that's the nature of any market. It will continue to grow and you just have to find a market for yourself.

« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2018, 11:07 »
+5
I don't see any reason to hate SS since they haven't been reducing contributor royalties.

Well, considering that they haven't raise the contributor commissions for about 10 years, while raising the price of subscriptions, you may say that they have somewhat reduced the royalties.

In the past, when SS raised the price of the subscription plans, they usually raised the amount paid per download.

Plus, they seriously dropped the price of the Extended Licenses. A couple years back we would get $28 and now it's rare for them to get to the $20 mark.

I'm pretty sure that they also changed the requirements from which a buyer had to buy an EL, like the number of prints. Many sales that would have required an EL and for which you would receive $28, now you receive $0.38 or less depending on your rank because of the more permissive license.

So yes, they have been reducing the royalties.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4223 Views
Last post December 23, 2008, 16:45
by YadaYadaYada
9 Replies
1873 Views
Last post June 26, 2010, 16:07
by nicemonkey
105 Replies
12872 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 07:34
by ClaridgeJ
36 Replies
10115 Views
Last post August 05, 2013, 09:16
by gbalex
33 Replies
7504 Views
Last post August 05, 2015, 15:41
by Luka

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors