Author Topic: It seems to me or does SS work against its contributors? (Read 7719 times)

melis82 · « **on:** November 10, 2016, 15:19 »

Next year will be ten years since I am a contributor. I used to love this site. Uploaded almost every week in these ten years, and I constantly tried to improve my photography and increase the number of uploads. Everything seemed to work just fine with sales increasing as my portfolio grew bigger and bigger. Up until this summer. Since July newer pictures simply do not sell no matter how many I upload. And this November I had minus $1000 compared to last November sales. Everything that happened this year must have led to this. The changes in the search engine, the best matches category that only shows spanned images, erasing our followers, the automated review process, changing the conditions of accepting new contributors from seven to one accepted image and so on. There's no reason to upload anymore, new files don't get a chance to sell, they only get buried under millions and millions of other images. It is discouraging what is happening. It seems to me that this is all against old SS contributors who won't be motivated to upload anymore if things don't change soon. It is like SS is slowly dying, at least for me.

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2016, 16:59 »

They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.

alno · « **Reply #2 on:** November 10, 2016, 17:47 »

Don't make simple things complicated with all those conspiracy theories.
Shutterstock is a usual company with a single ultimate goal. Profit. They don't have to build a nice community or make its contributors happy. Those are side effects actually.
Don't take all those recent changes too personal, most likely they will bury themselves under 500 million of crappy images soon. Just keep uploading to different sites like Fotolia or so.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2016, 18:36 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 10, 2016, 16:59

They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.

And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.

flywing · « **Reply #4 on:** November 10, 2016, 18:52 »

Looks like they love experimenting. They're probably testing to see if just sheer number of images will bring in more sales. And if they don't like the result, they could just put the Premier Select platform on top of the standard collection for all buyers, just a guess.

obj owl · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2016, 21:06 »

Quote from: flywing on November 10, 2016, 18:52

Looks like they love experimenting. They're probably testing to see if just sheer number of images will bring in more sales. And if they don't like the result, they could just put the Premier Select platform on top of the standard collection for all buyers, just a guess.

Not a bad guess, but it's a bit more incremental than that.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #6 on:** November 10, 2016, 23:39 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 10, 2016, 18:36

Quote from: stockastic on November 10, 2016, 16:59
They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.

And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.

Congratulations! Your unwavering support for the fine example of competent management and contributor benefits that is Istock/Getty is something to be really proud of. I'm so jealous I'm not you!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2016, 02:18 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 10, 2016, 23:39

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 10, 2016, 18:36
Quote from: stockastic on November 10, 2016, 16:59
They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.

And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.

Congratulations! Your unwavering support for the fine example of competent management and contributor benefits that is Istock/Getty is something to be really proud of. I'm so jealous I'm not you!

and I-stock accept EVERYTHING once you pass their test. SS are no better or worse morally than any other successful site they just happen to remain the most succesful (though maybe under threat)

panicAttack · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2016, 03:00 »

now they are removing posts with images and contributors names who use spamming in shutterstock forums

lol

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2016, 03:31 »

RTG, there was no reason for getty to lower commissions to 2 cent per image other than greed, no one pays that low, not even deposit, yet you seem to be ok with that, hypocrite

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** November 11, 2016, 08:15 »

Quote from: panicAttack on November 11, 2016, 03:00

now they are removing posts with images and contributors names who use spamming in shutterstock forums

lol

Can you post the link to that thread in the forum? I have looked there, and I don't see one regarding spamming issue.

panicAttack · « **Reply #11 on:** November 11, 2016, 09:38 »

Quote from: cathyslife on November 11, 2016, 08:15

Quote from: panicAttack on November 11, 2016, 03:00
now they are removing posts with images and contributors names who use spamming in shutterstock forums

lol

Can you post the link to that thread in the forum? I have looked there, and I don't see one regarding spamming issue.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/89637-update-on-title-spamming/page-6

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #12 on:** November 11, 2016, 10:31 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 10, 2016, 23:39

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 10, 2016, 18:36
Quote from: stockastic on November 10, 2016, 16:59
They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.

And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.

Congratulations! Your unwavering support for the fine example of competent management and contributor benefits that is Istock/Getty is something to be really proud of. I'm so jealous I'm not you!

I did not mention anything about IS/GI. There is no mention of unwavering support for IS/GI. I simply said most agencies will have to follow suit of SS and that I am glad I never supported them. The whole concept of subscription and 0.25c per download was a red flag 10 years ago, and yes, in my view SS and the subscription model work against contributors. You need to wake up and realize there is more to stock photography than only SS/IS/GI. I was merely agreeing with the post that I quoted in my reply, so please don't twist up my words to suit your fantasy of being jealous you are not me.

cathyslife · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2016, 10:52 »

Quote from: panicAttack on November 11, 2016, 09:38

Quote from: cathyslife on November 11, 2016, 08:15
Quote from: panicAttack on November 11, 2016, 03:00
now they are removing posts with images and contributors names who use spamming in shutterstock forums

lol

Can you post the link to that thread in the forum? I have looked there, and I don't see one regarding spamming issue.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/89637-update-on-title-spamming/page-6

Thanks for that...I didn't look in the announcements section. Saved it so I can keep an eye on it.

Chichikov · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2016, 11:15 »

Yes Shutterstock is very bad!

Since one year ago the sales on Shutterstock represented about 50% of my income.
This year the sales on Shutterstock represent more than 60% of my income…

So bad!!

The problem is not specific to Shutterstock, but to the whole microstock industry.
And in the microstock industry the one having lost less (for me) is Shutterstock.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2016, 18:16 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 11, 2016, 10:31

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 10, 2016, 23:39
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 10, 2016, 18:36
Quote from: stockastic on November 10, 2016, 16:59
They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.

And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.

Congratulations! Your unwavering support for the fine example of competent management and contributor benefits that is Istock/Getty is something to be really proud of. I'm so jealous I'm not you!

I did not mention anything about IS/GI. There is no mention of unwavering support for IS/GI. I simply said most agencies will have to follow suit of SS and that I am glad I never supported them. The whole concept of subscription and 0.25c per download was a red flag 10 years ago, and yes, in my view SS and the subscription model work against contributors. You need to wake up and realize there is more to stock photography than only SS/IS/GI. I was merely agreeing with the post that I quoted in my reply, so please don't twist up my words to suit your fantasy of being jealous you are not me.

Your posting history of Istock praise and defending them when they do indefensible actions is well known, so your hypocrisy in congratulating yourself for never uploading to SS. Is laughable. Don't imagine that each post you make is in a vacuum and will not be weighed against your past comments.

angelawaye · « **Reply #16 on:** November 11, 2016, 23:24 »

I have so many awesome images I want to upload to SS but I know they will never be seen. I was wondering if I should submit them as Fotolia Exclusive and compare ...

I don't know where else to go but Alamy and they take time ...

SS broke my heart ... I'm not the same person anymore now ...

topol · « **Reply #17 on:** November 12, 2016, 08:30 »

Quote from: Irina Anosova on November 10, 2016, 17:47

Don't make simple things complicated with all those conspiracy theories.
Shutterstock is a usual company with a single ultimate goal. Profit. They don't have to build a nice community or make its contributors happy. Those are side effects actually.
Don't take all those recent changes too personal, most likely they will bury themselves under 500 million of crappy images soon. Just keep uploading to different sites like Fotolia or so.

They won't bury themselves because they have pretty good search engine. These are digital goods, not physical. The irrelevant, LCV stuff don't even show, doesn't bother anyone, as if it doesn't even exist.

topol · « **Reply #18 on:** November 12, 2016, 08:33 »

Quote from: obj owl on November 10, 2016, 21:06

Quote from: flywing on November 10, 2016, 18:52
Looks like they love experimenting. They're probably testing to see if just sheer number of images will bring in more sales. And if they don't like the result, they could just put the Premier Select platform on top of the standard collection for all buyers, just a guess.

Not a bad guess, but it's a bit more incremental than that.

They don't have to premier select, that's what the search engine si for. The only reason for that is having some different pricing scheme, and they already have that: offset.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: It seems to me or does SS work against its contributors? (Read 7719 times)

melis82

stockastic

alno

Rose Tinted Glasses

flywing

obj owl

PixelBytes

Pauws99

panicAttack

Microstockphoto

cathyslife

panicAttack

Rose Tinted Glasses

cathyslife

Chichikov

PixelBytes

angelawaye

topol

topol

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors