MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why Shutterstock is accepting everything  (Read 6927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« on: October 13, 2018, 07:15 »
+3
To please investors, as you've probably surmised.

"Margins have contracted in recent years, but the company continues to address with cost reductions.

The company has aggressively built out its stock photo content, dwarfing rival Adobe....

Based on publicly available info from both companies, it appears Shutterstock has actually outpaced Adobe in the buildout of its stock photo offering. Shutterstock had a larger library in 2015, but since that time, its content growth rate has far outpaced that of Adobe:...

In short, I'm getting access to a larger library of content for my dollar with Shutterstock than I am through Adobe. Over the last 12 months, Shutterstock has drawn 1.9 million customers, which is up 7.5% yoy."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4211402-shutterstock-looking-like-potential-long-term-play-strong-2018#alt1


nobody

« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2018, 07:55 »
+25
Shutter is using the 'Walmart' strategy with tons of low quality items.  The good artist quality images are drown by the crappy images and/or copied by others as well. No benefit to us whatsoever on their corporate moves... :-\


« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2018, 07:58 »
+11
That short term marketing stunt may cost a lot in the long term.

As soon as buyers start perceiving the SS collection as little more than dross, and the time and effort to find anything suitable becomes too much to be practical they'll change to another more curated agency.

Even if SS then starts tightening the approval criteria the damage will be done. Millions of great images will already be buried in all that garbage and the photographers will not re-shoot and submit the same things. I know I will not.

Shelma1

« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2018, 08:08 »
+14
I agree. It may please investors in the short term, but I think buyers are finding it frustrating to try to pick good images from the avalanche of cruddy similars. And their continuing site outages are p*ssing people off. Adobe is the new rising star.

« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2018, 08:24 »
+10
"Over the last 12 months, Shutterstock has drawn 1.9 million customers, which is up 7.5% yoy." So I wouldn't write them off too soon......but I do think they are living on borrowed time without better QC and a stable platform.

« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2018, 23:15 »
+1
Beside having lot of crappy (and good) images, I still have few buyers in network who prefer buying from SS as they get lot of options.

H2O

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2018, 06:32 »
+1
Designers I know have long complained about the quality of the images, when searching SS, at the end of the day quality will win out, this is why they opened Offset the Premium site.

wds

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2018, 08:26 »
+3
I agree. It may please investors in the short term, but I think buyers are finding it frustrating to try to pick good images from the avalanche of cruddy similars. And their continuing site outages are p*ssing people off. Adobe is the new rising star.

My sales don't reflect a "rising star". My Adobe sales have been fairly constant over the last couple of years while SS has been slightly dropping...fwiw

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2018, 10:58 »
+2
What a pathetic con job. Standing back and letting  their archive get flooded with junk is a "buildout"?


derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2018, 11:48 »
+4
Short term profit thinking, branding the average customer as stupid and not knowing anything about quality but still buying any old rubbish!  add to that they pile it up and accepting anything! Thats why they lowered the bar so that every weekend snapper with a phone could gain entry.

Sad thing that some pros and advanced amateurs still feed this beast uploading and thats the only thing that keeps this crap alive!

msg2018

« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2018, 15:08 »
+2
almost...

Quote
Short term profit thinking, branding the average customer as stupid and not  knowing anything giving a **** about quality


« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2018, 16:13 »
+2
This article shows that although Shutterstock has increased its portfolio by over 300% over the last 3 years, it has only increased downloads by around 9%.

http://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=84743e14-8f7e-49e0-8e64-0deff8dcd563

FYI, you do have to pay to view the article.

« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2018, 10:00 »
+2
Short term profit thinking, branding the average customer as stupid and not knowing anything about quality but still buying any old rubbish!  add to that they pile it up and accepting anything! Thats why they lowered the bar so that every weekend snapper with a phone could gain entry.

Sad thing that some pros and advanced amateurs still feed this beast uploading and thats the only thing that keeps this crap alive!

And now they flood facebook groups with questions like "what is RF?" and "where is the upload button in mobile app". People that don't know their way around mobile app and website UIs, let alone photography or design.   

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2018, 12:29 »
+2
Short term profit thinking, branding the average customer as stupid and not knowing anything about quality but still buying any old rubbish!  add to that they pile it up and accepting anything! Thats why they lowered the bar so that every weekend snapper with a phone could gain entry.

Sad thing that some pros and advanced amateurs still feed this beast uploading and thats the only thing that keeps this crap alive!

And now they flood facebook groups with questions like "what is RF?" and "where is the upload button in mobile app". People that don't know their way around mobile app and website UIs, let alone photography or design.

Yes 100% true! everything to make life more difficult for existing contributors and less and less profitable by the minute! its all quantity nowadays, more and more!

« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2018, 13:59 »
+2
It's probably my loss, but I didn't dare jump into the stock for 10 years, until I thought I reached a certain quality and until I gathered decent equipment and it became my second nature. People now flood SS with mediocre mobile snaps and I don't think it's doing anyone any good, not even for them as they won't learn anything and probably won't reach payouts.

Shelma1

« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2018, 17:16 »
+6
Shutterstock *has* to be creating these images. They either have people on staff churning this stuff out to plump up the library or they're recruiting people to upload quick and dirty portfolios full of thousands of images that take seconds to generate.

There's just no way these ports are going through the usual review process.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2018, 17:27 »
+4
It seems that SS is doing some heavy marketing in India. Loads of new contributors there shooting useless stuff with their smartphones. Nearly everyday there is someone from India on the SS forum opening threads asking "why they're few dozen snapshots aren't selling after a few weeks". Not really their fault as those pics should have never been accepted in the first place by a redundant SS QC team that were once upon a time the benchmark. Now they just reject for legal reasons, that is if they gets through without the Technical Error rejection.

Although there must be some excellent Indian contributors, I'm not seeing much quality from the new contributors. Such a pity because India is inherently beautiful.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 17:38 by Brasilnut »


derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2018, 01:40 »
0
Shutterstock *has* to be creating these images. They either have people on staff churning this stuff out to plump up the library or they're recruiting people to upload quick and dirty portfolios full of thousands of images that take seconds to generate.

There's just no way these ports are going through the usual review process.

Yes!  I am sure youre right there to some extent! Getty did the same towards the end of 90's, hired staff and photographers to churn out useless studio images by the millions!
I cant see any reviewer anywhere accepting thousands of images of weeds for example. Its an impossiblillity!

« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2018, 09:32 »
+1
It seems that SS is doing some heavy marketing in India. Loads of new contributors there shooting useless stuff with their smartphones. Nearly everyday there is someone from India on the SS forum opening threads asking "why they're few dozen snapshots aren't selling after a few weeks". Not really their fault as those pics should have never been accepted in the first place by a redundant SS QC team that were once upon a time the benchmark. Now they just reject for legal reasons, that is if they gets through without the Technical Error rejection.

Although there must be some excellent Indian contributors, I'm not seeing much quality from the new contributors. Such a pity because India is inherently beautiful.
As I've said before Shutterstock are not doing any one a favour by their grow port at all costs approach...they are promoting false expectations and allowing submission of millions of images that will never sell. Horribly cynical really.
 

« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2018, 11:33 »
+4
Shutterstock *has* to be creating these images. They either have people on staff churning this stuff out to plump up the library or they're recruiting people to upload quick and dirty portfolios full of thousands of images that take seconds to generate.

There's just no way these ports are going through the usual review process.

I suspect many "contributor" portfolios are wholly owned by agencies.  I'm sure they give themselves a nice dose of search result optimization as well.  That's what I would do if I owned an agency. 

Getty used to be somewhat open about it.  How many millions of images did they / do they own?


« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2018, 12:35 »
+3
I'm no mathamatician but I reckon that if SS QC spent ten seconds on each of this week's 1,410,450 new images it would take a full 163 days to complete the task!

« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2018, 13:12 »
+1
I'm no mathamatician but I reckon that if SS QC spent ten seconds on each of this week's 1,410,450 new images it would take a full 163 days to complete the task!
So about 500 working days bout 120 staff ;-).

« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2018, 17:21 »
0
I think the more important question right now is "How can I make my work stand out?".

« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2018, 15:12 »
+1
I am sure in a not so far future, MS companies will exclude portfolios of people who were flooding databases with low quality images (hem, maybe the words crap images are often more adequate)... Customers are surely getting more and more exasperated with the dilution of the good images.
Anyway, these practices are and will be a bad calculation for the efficiency of one's portfolio. Everything can move in microstock, in bad or good way.

« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2018, 16:03 »
+6
A few posts were removed from this thread.  This is a good discussion - let's try not to reduce it down to personal attacks on individual photographers.

« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2018, 16:23 »
+2
I do only video, and to be honest SS is the only agency where I get rejections.
The way it works is that generally they reject one third of each batch.
Reviewers are paid peanuts and certainly they don't have the time to actually look at each individual file (with video), but they are scared to death that if they accept a whole bunch they will be considered lazy, so they simply reject a few random one just to pretend that they have had a look at them.
Of course you resubmit them and the get all accepted, because they know that if they refuse them a second time, the artist might argue with whatever quality control service and reviewers will get in trouble.
Bottom line, every time you upload videos to SS, you know that one third will be rejected and you have to upload it again. A bit of an idiotic way to work, but after all you end up with everything accepted.
The only question is: Why SS keep paying useless reviewers? they could save the money and give it to contributors, or give discount to customers

« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2018, 17:36 »
0
I do only video, and to be honest SS is the only agency where I get rejections.
The way it works is that generally they reject one third of each batch.
Reviewers are paid peanuts and certainly they don't have the time to actually look at each individual file (with video), but they are scared to death that if they accept a whole bunch they will be considered lazy, so they simply reject a few random one just to pretend that they have had a look at them.
Of course you resubmit them and the get all accepted, because they know that if they refuse them a second time, the artist might argue with whatever quality control service and reviewers will get in trouble.
Bottom line, every time you upload videos to SS, you know that one third will be rejected and you have to upload it again. A bit of an idiotic way to work, but after all you end up with everything accepted.
The only question is: Why SS keep paying useless reviewers? they could save the money and give it to contributors, or give discount to customers

This isn't my experience. I generally submit small batches of videos and have a rejection rate of less than 10%. Almost always I agree with the rejections when I look closely. Only once in seven years of submitting to SS have I felt that a reviewer has lazily or mistakenly pushed the reject button on a batch of videos and rejected the whole lot. SS support eventually agreed with me that the rejection was an error but I didn't bother resubmitting as P5 provided a perfectly acceptable home for the same batch anyway. i think to say that their reviewers reject a third of every batch is too sweeping a statement.


« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2018, 18:39 »
0
I do only video, and to be honest SS is the only agency where I get rejections.
The way it works is that generally they reject one third of each batch.
Reviewers are paid peanuts and certainly they don't have the time to actually look at each individual file (with video), but they are scared to death that if they accept a whole bunch they will be considered lazy, so they simply reject a few random one just to pretend that they have had a look at them.
Of course you resubmit them and the get all accepted, because they know that if they refuse them a second time, the artist might argue with whatever quality control service and reviewers will get in trouble.
Bottom line, every time you upload videos to SS, you know that one third will be rejected and you have to upload it again. A bit of an idiotic way to work, but after all you end up with everything accepted.
The only question is: Why SS keep paying useless reviewers? they could save the money and give it to contributors, or give discount to customers

This isn't my experience. I generally submit small batches of videos and have a rejection rate of less than 10%. Almost always I agree with the rejections when I look closely. Only once in seven years of submitting to SS have I felt that a reviewer has lazily or mistakenly pushed the reject button on a batch of videos and rejected the whole lot. SS support eventually agreed with me that the rejection was an error but I didn't bother resubmitting as P5 provided a perfectly acceptable home for the same batch anyway. i think to say that their reviewers reject a third of every batch is too sweeping a statement.

Yes, that's true, each batch would be reviewed on it's own merits, but it's also true that Shutterstock's rejection rate as a whole is 33% or thereabouts.

« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2018, 20:44 »
0
I agree that the rejection rate seems 'relatively' high.

While yes - I do agree with some of the comments (on why certain videos were rejected) - others do just seem to be 'randomly' rejected.

« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2018, 03:37 »
+1
I am sure in a not so far future, MS companies will exclude portfolios of people who were flooding databases with low quality images (hem, maybe the words crap images are often more adequate)... Customers are surely getting more and more exasperated with the dilution of the good images.
Anyway, these practices are and will be a bad calculation for the efficiency of one's portfolio. Everything can move in microstock, in bad or good way.
My belief is they think intelligent search engines will in effect hide these images away....I just don't believe we've reached that point..as usual the hype about IT is a few years in advance of the reality.

« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2018, 05:49 »
0
The hype about IT has first to realize that the bug of the year 2000 will never happen...  :o

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2018, 10:27 »
+1
I am sure in a not so far future, MS companies will exclude portfolios of people who were flooding databases with low quality images (hem, maybe the words crap images are often more adequate)... Customers are surely getting more and more exasperated with the dilution of the good images.
Anyway, these practices are and will be a bad calculation for the efficiency of one's portfolio. Everything can move in microstock, in bad or good way.
My belief is they think intelligent search engines will in effect hide these images away....I just don't believe we've reached that point..as usual the hype about IT is a few years in advance of the reality.

Like this?  ;)

Showcase is an evolution of Shutterstock Labs, which was launched in 2012 as a platform for exploratory tools and products. The company has been developing innovative solutions to improve image search with tools such as Composition Search with computer vision technology, Spectrum and Reverse Image Search. The goal for Shutterstock is to make the millions of images it has in its library available with a higher degree of accuracy and speed.  ::)

Stop, I have to read that again... "higher degree of accuracy and speed" not high, but higher, which means any improvement is higher, the search could still be terrible and it would be better and higher?

Or the May 8th, 2018 announcement?  https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/shutterstock-showcase-next-gen-image-search

Were excited to introduce Shutterstock Showcase, a suite of visual search tools powered by AI and deep learning that will change the way you search for images. Oh yes, so excited!  :)

But they did add a plugin to search from Adobe CC. Watching these two moving ahead, and in all likelihood, they will leave the rest behind even more over time. Five years ago, would anyone predict, with any facts, that FT would pass IS? Look at the Big Four, and ask, what happened to all the rest below that?

I still think AI or some search tweak isn't going to make up for the total disaster and mess that low standards and accepting almost anything, has created.

« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2018, 13:35 »
+5
Not only is this strategy not good for contributors, it also makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to sort through the glut of poor quality images to find the good stuff. This emphasis on pleasing shareholders in the short term rather than thinking about what is best for the company in the long term is a problem across the business world. It all comes down to short-sighted greed.

Shelma1

« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2018, 09:47 »
+2
SS stock price has dropped more than 10%, despite all the fluffing of the collection. So ruining things for buyers and contributors hasn't made investors happy either. Sad all around.

"Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) drops 10.3% on Q3 results that beat EPS estimates but missed on revenue. Downside Y18 guidance has revenue from $625M to $630M (consensus: $633.81), down from the prior guide of $625M to $635M. Adjusted EBITDA guide was also tightened from $105M to $110M to $105M.

Key metrics: Paid downloads, 43.9M (+5% Y/Y); revenue per download, $3.40 (+5%); image collection, 221M images (+42%); video collection, 12M clips (+44%)."

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3402687-shutterstock-minus-10_3-percent-mixed-q3-narrowed-fy-guide?dr=1#email_link

« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2018, 10:07 »
0
SS stock price has dropped more than 10%, despite all the fluffing of the collection. So ruining things for buyers and contributors hasn't made investors happy either. Sad all around.

"Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) drops 10.3% on Q3 results that beat EPS estimates but missed on revenue. Downside Y18 guidance has revenue from $625M to $630M (consensus: $633.81), down from the prior guide of $625M to $635M. Adjusted EBITDA guide was also tightened from $105M to $110M to $105M.

Key metrics: Paid downloads, 43.9M (+5% Y/Y); revenue per download, $3.40 (+5%); image collection, 221M images (+42%); video collection, 12M clips (+44%)."

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3402687-shutterstock-minus-10_3-percent-mixed-q3-narrowed-fy-guide?dr=1#email_link
This is the pattern the stock price gradually recovers on optimism until the next set of results which slightly fail to deliver. Away from the stock market though SSs results still show growth so its not nearly as bad for shutterstock  as some would like to think. The number of downloads and revenue is still going up.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2018, 10:53 »
0
SS stock price has dropped more than 10%, despite all the fluffing of the collection. So ruining things for buyers and contributors hasn't made investors happy either. Sad all around.

"Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) drops 10.3% on Q3 results that beat EPS estimates but missed on revenue. Downside Y18 guidance has revenue from $625M to $630M (consensus: $633.81), down from the prior guide of $625M to $635M. Adjusted EBITDA guide was also tightened from $105M to $110M to $105M.

Key metrics: Paid downloads, 43.9M (+5% Y/Y); revenue per download, $3.40 (+5%); image collection, 221M images (+42%); video collection, 12M clips (+44%)."

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3402687-shutterstock-minus-10_3-percent-mixed-q3-narrowed-fy-guide?dr=1#email_link
This is the pattern the stock price gradually recovers on optimism until the next set of results which slightly fail to deliver. Away from the stock market though SSs results still show growth so its not nearly as bad for shutterstock  as some would like to think. The number of downloads and revenue is still going up.

Interesting:
High
55.06
on Sep 12, 2018
Low
36.64
on Nov 3, 2017
Avg
47.37
for past 1 year

I'd say Shelma1 and others have this right. I will say it's not stockholders who they are trying to impress, it's investors. Stock holders want the value to go up, true, but investors are the ones who make that happen, by buying the stock at inflated prices. People keep writing about how the glut is somehow making stockholders happy. I see it as, only when they sell to investors who are buying the "we have more images" hype.

Maybe investors are finally seeing the same as we do, that more is not the same as better quality or attractive for licenses?  ;)

I suppose SS could start another curated collection and actually have reviews and scrutiny of what's allowed in?

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2018, 15:43 »
+3
Utter utter garbage. November started as abysmal as ever. The whole site has become a compromised bin. Depressing.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 16:00 by Herg »


« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2018, 13:50 »
+2
Utter utter shite. November statarted as abysmal as ever. The whole site has become a compromised bin. Depressing.

at least you are consistant, Feb. 2012

I have given up on SS and going to concentrate on my main earner which is IS (and that's still low). SS might be great for most people here but for me it has proved no returns on the time invested. I can't see it being any different from what it is now in the future. For me SS is the "Emperor's New Clothes" of microstock. With 1 or 2 sales a day of around 25 cents I can't understand how this can be sustainable.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2018, 14:13 »
0
Utter utter shite. November statarted as abysmal as ever. The whole site has become a compromised bin. Depressing.

Beat this igf you can and then tell me its not rigged!

Mon.....28.50
Tues.....27.96
Wed.    28.44
Thurs...26.88

so on and so forth!....its hard to realize that this was the site we praised to absolute heaven between 2005- 2015!  from then on its been a downhill slide all the way and today? well its hardy worth it anymore!   rant over!

PS/  wait for the ghostbusters! in particular two! ( you know the ones)  hahaha! ;D
« Last Edit: November 02, 2018, 14:16 by derek »

« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2018, 14:30 »
+1
Utter utter shite. November statarted as abysmal as ever. The whole site has become a compromised bin. Depressing.

Beat this igf you can and then tell me its not rigged!

Mon.....28.50
Tues.....27.96
Wed.    28.44
Thurs...26.88

so on and so forth!....its hard to realize that this was the site we praised to absolute heaven between 2005- 2015!  from then on its been a downhill slide all the way and today? well its hardy worth it anymore!   rant over!

PS/  wait for the ghostbusters! in particular two! ( you know the ones)  hahaha! ;D

Are you complaining that things change or things don't change?

« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2018, 14:38 »
0
Utter utter shite. November statarted as abysmal as ever. The whole site has become a compromised bin. Depressing.

Beat this igf you can and then tell me its not rigged!

Mon.....28.50
Tues.....27.96
Wed.    28.44
Thurs...26.88

so on and so forth!....its hard to realize that this was the site we praised to absolute heaven between 2005- 2015!  from then on its been a downhill slide all the way and today? well its hardy worth it anymore!   rant over!

PS/  wait for the ghostbusters! in particular two! ( you know the ones)  hahaha! ;D

Are you complaining that things change or things don't change?
  both I reckon....... 8)

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2018, 14:54 »
0
Not only is this strategy not good for contributors, it also makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to sort through the glut of poor quality images to find the good stuff. This emphasis on pleasing shareholders in the short term rather than thinking about what is best for the company in the long term is a problem across the business world. It all comes down to short-sighted greed.

Spot on!  greed!..........selling my shares some time ago was the best I've done!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2018, 17:47 »
+1
Utter utter shite. November statarted as abysmal as ever. The whole site has become a compromised bin. Depressing.

Beat this igf you can and then tell me its not rigged!

Mon.....28.50
Tues.....27.96
Wed.    28.44
Thurs...26.88

so on and so forth!....its hard to realize that this was the site we praised to absolute heaven between 2005- 2015!  from then on its been a downhill slide all the way and today? well its hardy worth it anymore!   rant over!

PS/  wait for the ghostbusters! in particular two! ( you know the ones)  hahaha! ;D

And before?

Bizarre???  check this out!  SS of course!

Sat.     18.32
Sun.    18.99
Mon.    29.40
Tues.   29.34

let me guess today?...29.34??  hahaha!

Looks like your imaginary cap is $28 and the two days of $18, they had to give you a raise?  ;D

« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2018, 12:51 »
0
anyway only the FIRST PAGE results of "popular" will sell
so the quality is always the best option to follow.

 

« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2018, 13:31 »
0
anyway only the FIRST PAGE results of "popular" will sell
so the quality is always the best option to follow.

There is no "popular" anymore, but you're right first pages of search and quality sell best.

« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2018, 04:21 »
0
about the main subject "Why Shutterstock is accepting everything" :

in my experience,  Shutterstock was accepting everything for videos 1 year ago, now they are more selective and don't reject randomly but each video that has some issue, you can resend, and generally, they are refused again if they have some problem.

the person that will review them is not always the same.
other agencies like Pond5, have made the opposite and now accept everything, they just refuse the big violation of the copyright of what they cannot sell at all.

about the salary of the reviewers, I think that they cannot pay more, because they have a lot of files to review quickly  and the money they earn is not unlimited and they prefer to distribute to contributors

if you look at the SS stock option trend and company public charts you can find in google, you can see that they have grown a lot in terms of gross-profit:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/gross-profit

but the Net Income was flat and depending on their revenue share.
This year, after many years of flat income,  they have probably changed something to keep more money for them, saving in RS or salaries:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/net-income

So they cannot pay too much the reviewers if they want to survive










« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2018, 04:30 »
+1
about the main subject "Why Shutterstock is accepting everything" :

in my experience,  Shutterstock was accepting everything for videos 1 year ago, now they are more selective and don't reject randomly but each video that has some issue, you can resend, and generally, they are refused again if they have some problem.

the person that will review them is not always the same.
other agencies like Pond5, have made the opposite and now accept everything, they just refuse the big violation of the copyright of what they cannot sell at all.

about the salary of the reviewers, I think that they cannot pay more, because they have a lot of files to review quickly  and the money they earn is not unlimited and they prefer to distribute to contributors

if you look at the SS stock option trend and company public charts you can find in google, you can see that they have grown a lot in terms of gross-profit:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/gross-profit

but the Net Income was flat and depending on their revenue share.
This year, after many years of flat income,  they have probably changed something to keep more money for them, saving in RS or salaries:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SSTK/shutterstock/net-income

So they cannot pay too much the reviewers if they want to survive
I believe they have said they are trying to reduce the increase in their costs so yes.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1296 Views
Last post August 25, 2010, 11:18
by azurelaroux
24 Replies
4986 Views
Last post September 23, 2015, 07:25
by Groman
1 Replies
873 Views
Last post November 07, 2016, 00:57
by imagesbykenny
6 Replies
1978 Views
Last post March 12, 2017, 02:36
by unnonimus
4 Replies
1361 Views
Last post April 22, 2017, 07:31
by Dodie

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors