pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: "Crossroads" on Shutterstock  (Read 8676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 23, 2018, 13:43 »
+1
If your SS video sales have tanked recently? I may know why....

Anyone else notice the video account "Crossroads" on Shutterstock?  They have about 300 clips and their clips are basically taking up all the top search positions on Shutterstock.  Look at the entire video collection sorted by "best match" or "popular" and its all this contributor.  Search a simple term like "office" and top 27 shots are all theirs, shot with same model and location.  Not only are they taking our sales but buyers are going to quickly more on to other sites if they see search results like this.  There is a topic on the forums about this but SS admin has not responded.  I have emailed the video team as well without any response. 


« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2018, 14:06 »
+1
They've probably been hacked...

« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2018, 14:08 »
0
I smell a witch hunt

« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2018, 14:17 »
0
I smell a witch hunt
Time to get the shovels and pitchforks!

« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2018, 14:19 »
0
If you search "forest" here we go, again crossroads and a woman.. This is game over for Shutterstock!

« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2018, 02:07 »
0
wow.. tried: "roads", "cars", "beach" and "house"... and yep, those guys are always at the top!

« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2018, 02:12 »
0
Also tried: "girl" "woman" "man" "nature".. always "croassroads" at the top!

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2018, 02:40 »
+6
Haha!  good find!!.......whoever thought SS is NOT engineering the search towards certain instances, well think again!! ;D ;D ;D!!  yes youre right, game over! I'm removing my videos asap!

« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2018, 04:22 »
0
WOW!
This is VERY very serious...
I'll write something to their support ASAP
How on earth could someone hack their search engine???

Shelma1

« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2018, 06:18 »
+9
I doubt their search engine has been hacked. Illustrators have been noticing this for a while now. Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back. Ive seen many instances of newbie ports suddenly taking over the entire first page of search results. But when I say it people laugh and make jokes about conspiracy theories. Now youre seeing it with footage. So now you see what I see.

« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2018, 07:01 »
+4
Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back

I do not believe. ONE single contributor pushed up for quite all simple search key? There should be other explanation.

New contributor having more visibility is not conspiracy theory, it's perfectly legit.
But why should be only one between hundreds, maybe thousands, it's nonsense and goes against agency itself interests.

« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2018, 07:12 »
+8
This is nothing new, unfortunately. Others do this as well, just more subtle. They can favor or handicap individual contributors by assignment of some kind of rating system. Years ago, a curator let it slip during a back and forth discussion. "This can negatively affect your contributor rating." was warned. Definitely seems a little conspiracy-ish at first, but it makes sense that they'd have a way to weigh portfolios of their choosing how they'd like to.

My guess is that Shutterstock has their own "contributor ratings" system and someone got greedy or cocky when assessing Mr. Crossroads here. Chances are, this was no hack or mistake, Crossroads is likely a Shutterstock employee, an associate of one, someone a SS staff member wanted to give a bump to, or just a buyout deal of now 100% owned SS content. Reasoning is irrelevant though, we can clearly see the result.

It's not a conspiracy, its a company doing whatever they want at the expense of those that created everything that made them wealthy. Look at their swanky Manhattan offices, these guys don't give a f***. Look at how terrible iStock has treated their contributors, and how an embarrassing number of you still willingly and openly support them. Why wouldn't these companies push the envelope and see how much we'll take?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 13:06 by Daryl Ray »

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2018, 07:13 »
+1
I doubt their search engine has been hacked. Illustrators have been noticing this for a while now. Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back. Ive seen many instances of newbie ports suddenly taking over the entire first page of search results. But when I say it people laugh and make jokes about conspiracy theories. Now youre seeing it with footage. So now you see what I see.

This is the trouble in stills as well, the search the buyers see and the geographical search is all newbie content and also from very specific countries in the world and its NOT the rich countries!

« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2018, 07:15 »
+3
Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back

I do not believe. ONE single contributor pushed up for quite all simple search key? There should be other explanation.

New contributor having more visibility is not conspiracy theory, it's perfectly legit.
But why should be only one between hundreds, maybe thousands, it's nonsense and goes against agency itself interests.

Could this account be company owned content?

Shelma1

« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2018, 07:27 »
+1
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.

« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2018, 07:43 »
0
Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back

I do not believe. ONE single contributor pushed up for quite all simple search key? There should be other explanation.

New contributor having more visibility is not conspiracy theory, it's perfectly legit.
But why should be only one between hundreds, maybe thousands, it's nonsense and goes against agency itself interests.

Could this account be company owned content?
I know Shutterstock like to describe our work as theirs but do they actually own any content?

« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2018, 08:41 »
0
Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back

I do not believe. ONE single contributor pushed up for quite all simple search key? There should be other explanation.

New contributor having more visibility is not conspiracy theory, it's perfectly legit.
But why should be only one between hundreds, maybe thousands, it's nonsense and goes against agency itself interests.

Could this account be company owned content?

There is probability for this, don't know.. I have seen there is a topic in their contributor forum too with no official reply till now.

« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2018, 11:05 »
0
Newbie ports are pushed to the top of the search and established contributors work is pushed back


I do not believe. ONE single contributor pushed up for quite all simple search key? There should be other explanation.

New contributor having more visibility is not conspiracy theory, it's perfectly legit.
But why should be only one between hundreds, maybe thousands, it's nonsense and goes against agency itself interests.


Could this account be company owned content?


Check this out:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/stolen-pictures-on-shutterstock/

« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2018, 12:47 »
+1
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.

The royalty rate is always 30% for footage. So, no.

« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2018, 13:06 »
+1
Is it possible because Crossroads uses top expensive professional equipment? The clips were shot with Phantom Flex 4K and Red, from what I saw. That could affect rating I speculate.

« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2018, 13:13 »
0
I shoot with high end cameras all the time, but I don't write the camera model in the description, since I don't think it's relevant to the client.
Sounds not reasonable at all.

Shelma1

« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2018, 13:42 »
+1
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.

The royalty rate is always 30% for footage. So, no.

But I would assume most footage contributors also contribute still images, so their royalty rates would be different for those. And since still images sell more than footage, the algorithm would still benefit Shutterstock.

« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2018, 16:38 »
0
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.

The royalty rate is always 30% for footage. So, no.

But I would assume most footage contributors also contribute still images, so their royalty rates would be different for those. And since still images sell more than footage, the algorithm would still benefit Shutterstock.
Sorry Shelma,
Wrong assumption.
If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well

« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2018, 16:52 »
+6

Sorry Shelma,
Wrong assumption.
If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well

Really? Seems like there are a ton of people here who started out with images, then added video to their ports.

« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2018, 17:44 »
+1

Sorry Shelma,
Wrong assumption.
If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well

Really? Seems like there are a ton of people here who started out with images, then added video to their ports.
Such as myself and my video port is now 20 times bigger than my photo port. Just another conspiracy.  The Crossroads appearing at the top of every search is another conspiracy. They only have 280 clips in total, 4K RED camera, production quality, so no surprise they make it to the top

Shelma1

« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2018, 17:57 »
+1
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.

The royalty rate is always 30% for footage. So, no.

But I would assume most footage contributors also contribute still images, so their royalty rates would be different for those. And since still images sell more than footage, the algorithm would still benefit Shutterstock.
Sorry Shelma,
Wrong assumption.
If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well

I assume you're being facetious, since it seems you have 645 photos on Pond5? And you create youtube videos advising people how to create still images for stock sites?

« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2018, 18:52 »
+4
Sorry Shelma,
Wrong assumption.
If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well

Huh??? What world do you live in?  Almost every photog I know that submits video also does stills.  I'm sure there are videographers that don't shoot with a still camera at all who only do one.  Otherwise, they are probably in both.

In fact, with only one exception, everyone I know that submits footage started in stills, and keeps that portfolio active (which, BTW, includes me...)

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2018, 03:24 »
+1
Could be. Or it could be a videographer they want to work with. Or their algorithm could just favor contributors with the lowest royalty rate, which seems most likely. That way Shutterstock maximizes profits, because they keep more of the money made from each sale.

The royalty rate is always 30% for footage. So, no.

But I would assume most footage contributors also contribute still images, so their royalty rates would be different for those. And since still images sell more than footage, the algorithm would still benefit Shutterstock.
Sorry Shelma,
Wrong assumption.
If you contribute footage, you would never, ever want to contribute still images as well

Why do you say that?  I mean I dont know but I certainly contribute both and have done for ages mostly to the trad agencies but still. Given this forum I would have thought most people do both?

« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2018, 03:40 »
+3
If you search for 'road' the first result is by a contributor called 'Eighth Wonder' and the model in that clip is the same model who appears in some of the footage by 'Crossroads'.


https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1018737826-black-millennial-girl-opens-trunk-white-vintage [nofollow]


https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1012359638-girl-on-skateboard-her-friend-pushes-down [nofollow]

Shelma1

« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2018, 04:04 »
0
Eighth Wonder has 12.5 million clips on Shutterstock?

« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2018, 04:13 »
+4
What worries me too is shuterstocks rocketstock.com collection. They have basically been watching what sells and make their own versions of it. They have copied loads of my texture video clips. Cheats....

« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2018, 05:38 »
+1
What worries me too is shuterstocks rocketstock.com collection. They have basically been watching what sells and make their own versions of it. They have copied loads of my texture video clips. Cheats....

Let them know there's blatant copying going on and get the account closed!

« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2018, 08:15 »
+1
If you search 'business' in footage it shows all of Gorodenkoff's work too, pages and pages.  I suspect this is just a glitch or data analysis trial.  It's been Thanks Giving too so hoping it sorts itself out once the programmers return to the Empire State building.

We should send a message to support though.

« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2018, 10:51 »
0
Eighth Wonder has 12.5 million clips on Shutterstock?

This is a glitch in the search engine. Click on the videos and you see that there are different contributors.

« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2018, 11:34 »
+2
When I search "office" it's a mix of "Eighth Wonder" and "Gorodenkoff" and to my eyes they look like absolutely the same.

« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2018, 08:01 »
+5
SS support has admitted that this is no bug and was obviously intentional...

Quote
Hi xxx,

Thank you for contacting Shutterstock Contributor Care.

As per your email, I could understand that your concern is regarding the search results.

I wish to inform you that it depends on the downloads and purchases made by customer worldwide which allows images to stay in the popular section of Shutterstock website.

I assure you that there is no bug issue as of now. In case there is any issue found we would surely let you know about that.

Also, this just proves how easy it is for them to cap your sales. Eat this non-believers.

« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2018, 08:31 »
+1
SS support has admitted that this is no bug and was obviously intentional...

Quote
Hi xxx,

Thank you for contacting Shutterstock Contributor Care.

As per your email, I could understand that your concern is regarding the search results.

I wish to inform you that it depends on the downloads and purchases made by customer worldwide which allows images to stay in the popular section of Shutterstock website.

I assure you that there is no bug issue as of now. In case there is any issue found we would surely let you know about that.

Also, this just proves how easy it is for them to cap your sales. Eat this non-believers.

Well, that's just a standard "have you tried plugging it in" answer.

I don't believe Contributor Care would have the slightest clue what goes on behind the scenes. They can't "admit" anything.

« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2018, 09:31 »
+1
SS support has admitted that this is no bug and was obviously intentional...

Quote
Hi xxx,

Thank you for contacting Shutterstock Contributor Care.

As per your email, I could understand that your concern is regarding the search results.

I wish to inform you that it depends on the downloads and purchases made by customer worldwide which allows images to stay in the popular section of Shutterstock website.

I assure you that there is no bug issue as of now. In case there is any issue found we would surely let you know about that.

Also, this just proves how easy it is for them to cap your sales. Eat this non-believers.
It just proves how little control they have over their own search engine results. Its probably become so complex over the years a small tweak can have unforeseen consequences.

« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2018, 09:48 »
+1
Something changed again today, "eight wonder" added to the top looks like another in-house collection added to the top of search.

« Reply #39 on: November 26, 2018, 09:54 »
0
Something changed again today, "eight wonder" added to the top looks like another in-house collection added to the top of search.
Do Shutterstock have in house collections?

« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2018, 10:01 »
+4
I wrote to SS customer support. Here is the reply:

Thank you for contacting Shutterstock Contributor Care.

I understand that you have a concern regarding our search engine. I can certainly help you with this.

I would like to inform you that we have checked our search page and everything is showing perfect in the page. Just as returned search results are dynamic, so is the position of images within those results. It is common for images or footage to move up and down search results and also depends on the number of times that image or footage has been downloaded. Besides downloads and age, there are many other factors that affect the image position in search results.

Additionally, we perform regular tests of small modifications to the search algorithms to test results that increase downloads. These tests are typically released to limited segments of the overall customer population. If a test performs well over time, which typically means an increase in the total number of downloads, then the resulting search algorithm change will be applied to the entire site.

Search testing and analysis is a continuous process of small improvements that generally wont result in dramatic swings in search. Changes are carefully tested and evaluated to make sure that the overall effect on customer downloads and/or purchases is a positive one.

Customer demand, content differentiation, keyword quantity and quality, global holidays, seasonality and other factors will affect an individual contributor's day-to-day earnings. We recommend allowing a little time before evaluating the effect of changes to the search engine on your personal portfolio.

If the search result order has not been updated on your computer for a significant amount of time, it is most likely that your browser is reverting to an old search result that is cached. If this is the case we recommend you to clear your cache and cookies and restart the browser.

Thank you for your feedback and concern. We really appreciate it.

Seems to me like someone from the inside promoted this "crossroads" account, and never thought someone will notice. I don't buy the whole "they have good quality clips shot in Alexa" thing. Many other great contributors with equally great quality content didn't get to rule the first page of shutterstock as far as I remember. (been there since 2012)

Shelma1

« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2018, 10:06 »
+11
Anyone who doesn't believe Shutterstock manipulates search to favor some contributors over others is drinking the kool aid.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2018, 14:38 »
+1
Anyone who doesn't believe Shutterstock manipulates search to favor some contributors over others is drinking the kool aid.

Dont say things like that Shelma!  soon you will have every newbie ghostbuster telling you youre imagining things because theyre getting 2 sales per day which in their eyes is exeptionally good!!! :)

« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2018, 14:49 »
0
Just a thought...
If investing the right amount of money in purchasing your own clips. you pay 70% to SS obviously.
But what if investing, let's say, $1,000 brings you up in the search engine to a place that earns you $2,000?
What if this "crossroads" bought their own new clips a few times (maybe using a discounted clip pack), boosted their positions and now making more money?
Does this make any sense?
BTW - just thought about this - in the previous model of VideoBlocks - you could boost your own video rankings by buying them again and again, and only pay tiny amounts to the agency in the process...:)


« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2018, 14:52 »
+3
Just a thought...
If investing the right amount of money in purchasing your own clips. you pay 70% to SS obviously.
But what if investing, let's say, $1,000 brings you up in the search engine to a place that earns you $2,000?
What if this "crossroads" bought their own new clips a few times (maybe using a discounted clip pack), boosted their positions and now making more money?
Does this make any sense?
BTW - just thought about this - in the previous model of VideoBlocks - you could boost your own video rankings by buying them again and again, and only pay tiny amounts to the agency in the process...:)
Its possible but they would be breaking SSs T and Cs  thats not to say they didn't of course but a risky strategy.

« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2018, 15:17 »
0
I wonder if it is possible that SS support member who answered that they see normal search results could just not get the question right? Or just was not senior enough to give the proper answer?

Because in their answer they say: "we have checked our search page and everything is showing perfect in the page. Just as returned search results are dynamic, so is the position of images within those results".

No one could have said things like that if they had opened just the total SS video base sorted by Popular or Best Match. It is just not possible - because now for 30+ pages I can see almost only one author - Eighth Wonder (aka Crossroads). No way they could call such results "perfect" or "dynamic".

BTW, now we can see that Eighth Wonder's portfolio counts 3200+ videos and the 1st of the was accepted mid October. So 3200 videos in under 1,5 months and straight to the top...

Has anyone else asked the support about this? I wrote them but got just a standard answer - as if a person did not even have a look. Or it wasn't a person in the first place. So I wrote them again but still got nothing.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 15:22 by Newbee_2018 »

« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2018, 15:37 »
0
I wonder if it is possible that SS support member who answered that they see normal search results could just not get the question right? Or just was not senior enough to give the proper answer?

Because in their answer they say: "we have checked our search page and everything is showing perfect in the page. Just as returned search results are dynamic, so is the position of images within those results".

No one could have said things like that if they had opened just the total SS video base sorted by Popular or Best Match. It is just not possible - because now for 30+ pages I can see almost only one author - Eighth Wonder (aka Crossroads). No way they could call such results "perfect" or "dynamic".

BTW, now we can see that Eighth Wonder's portfolio counts 3200+ videos and the 1st of the was accepted mid October. So 3200 videos in under 1,5 months and straight to the top...

Has anyone else asked the support about this? I wrote them but got just a standard answer - as if a person did not even have a look. Or it wasn't a person in the first place. So I wrote them again but still got nothing.
I just assumed it was a standard letter. If the building was in flames they wouldn't tell contributors till it was on National News.

« Reply #47 on: November 26, 2018, 15:45 »
+1
Just a thought...
If investing the right amount of money in purchasing your own clips. you pay 70% to SS obviously.
But what if investing, let's say, $1,000 brings you up in the search engine to a place that earns you $2,000?
What if this "crossroads" bought their own new clips a few times (maybe using a discounted clip pack), boosted their positions and now making more money?
Does this make any sense?
I am not sure but I think that to push even one clip to the top of 12M+ clips you have to buy it quite a lot of times, some hundreds of times. And they have 3000+ clips occupying first 30+ pages. You do the math :)

Besides, right after them there are other authors whose works go in bunches (not as huge but still).

« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2018, 17:08 »
0
Official reply from Shutterstock:
newbielink:https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/95821-crossroads/?do=findComment&comment=1718006 [nonactive]

It was a glitch after all but they are working on fixing it right now (and it is seen on the site)

« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2018, 17:53 »
+1
Official reply from Shutterstock:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/95821-crossroads/?do=findComment&comment=1718006

It was a glitch after all but they are working on fixing it right now (and it is seen on the site)
99 times out of 100 "cock up" beats "conspiracy".

Shelma1

« Reply #50 on: November 26, 2018, 18:31 »
+1
Official reply from Shutterstock:
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/95821-crossroads/?do=findComment&comment=1718006

It was a glitch after all but they are working on fixing it right now (and it is seen on the site)

Doublespeak.

« Reply #51 on: November 26, 2018, 18:38 »
0
.....everything is showing perfect in the page. Just as returned search results are dynamic

"Perfect" and "dynamic" huh? I would describe it more as "biased" myself.

Glad to know it's a glitch.

« Reply #52 on: November 26, 2018, 18:58 »
+6
glitch means oops, they are onto us.

« Reply #53 on: November 26, 2018, 21:10 »
+2
99 times out of 100 "cock up" beats "conspiracy".

Or, as my mother used to say "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity"...

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2018, 03:00 »
+2
If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein!

« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2018, 04:11 »
+1
Which he never said

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2018, 06:05 »
0
He didnt have to!

« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2018, 08:54 »
+1
Which he never said

It was Ivanka Trump  ;D

Now lets get on with Trump bashing  ;D

« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2018, 09:16 »
+2
I only see "Eighth Wonder" username on top of all searches now.

Are they the same guy?

« Reply #59 on: November 27, 2018, 11:55 »
+8
For everybody late for the party, here is a summed up with visual screenshots how SS actually works behind the scenes: https://video-stock.org/the-magic-button-at-shutterstock/

Shelma1

« Reply #60 on: November 27, 2018, 18:47 »
+1
The bottom half of page one and almost all of pages two and three (plus the top of page four) in most popular search. Tell me this is a "glitch." https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=super%20santa&sort=popular&image_type=all&search_source=base_landing_page&language=en&page=2&section=1

Note: I don't mean to denigrate this illustrator in any way. The illustrations are great. Just pointing out another instance where SS floods most popular in a category with work from one person.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 18:51 by Shelma1 »

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #61 on: November 28, 2018, 02:56 »
0
For everybody late for the party, here is a summed up with visual screenshots how SS actually works behind the scenes: https://video-stock.org/the-magic-button-at-shutterstock/


Great find!.....you most probably find the same skulduggery in stills as well!...some of us have been witnessing this for years now. So not surprised at all!. I removed all my clips in the beginning of last week and put them all into pond5 and Lo and behold they've already sold twice and for good money!

« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2018, 03:23 »
0
I removed all my clips in the beginning of last week and put them all into pond5 and Lo and behold they've already sold twice and for good money!

Yet you only seem to have two clips there, with just 1 sale on one of them, priced well below the standard Shutterstock price.  ???  ;)

...and 3 clips still online at Shutterstock.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2018, 04:14 »
0
I removed all my clips in the beginning of last week and put them all into pond5 and Lo and behold they've already sold twice and for good money!

Yet you only seem to have two clips there, with just 1 sale on one of them, priced well below the standard Shutterstock price.  ???  ;)

...and 3 clips still online at Shutterstock.

Do I?  all my clips are baked in under what we call a " factory" been for many years! and not in "clager" that should only be stills! ..well it should be!! Better check it out?...btw the ones you saw, were they old moving engineering parts?

« Reply #64 on: November 28, 2018, 04:38 »
0
I removed all my clips in the beginning of last week and put them all into pond5 and Lo and behold they've already sold twice and for good money!

Yet you only seem to have two clips there, with just 1 sale on one of them, priced well below the standard Shutterstock price.  ???  ;)

...and 3 clips still online at Shutterstock.

Do I?  all my clips are baked in under what we call a " factory" been for many years! and not in "clager" that should only be stills! ..well it should be!! Better check it out?...btw the ones you saw, were they old moving engineering parts?

I see, my bad. Yes, they were the engineering parts.

Do you feel one can get better exposure being part of a "factory"?

« Reply #65 on: November 28, 2018, 06:06 »
0
A day passed by but nothing has really changed. They are still occupying all top pages in Popular and Best Match, it's only the 1st page that looks right now.
How long does it take to revert changes on your own site?..

« Reply #66 on: November 28, 2018, 06:55 »
0
For everybody late for the party, here is a summed up with visual screenshots how SS actually works behind the scenes: https://video-stock.org/the-magic-button-at-shutterstock/

I really can't understand the link between this "magic button" for one or two contributor with the "cap theory" on other thousands of contributors.

I don't know if it's a glitch, but is perfectly legit for the agency to give more space to best sellers contributor (too much space, unbelievable space, I agree!). But how could this affect the famous "cap"? These are two really different things, and one can't work well with the other one ;-)

« Reply #67 on: November 28, 2018, 08:09 »
+2
For everybody late for the party, here is a summed up with visual screenshots how SS actually works behind the scenes: https://video-stock.org/the-magic-button-at-shutterstock/

I really can't understand the link between this "magic button" for one or two contributor with the "cap theory" on other thousands of contributors.

I don't know if it's a glitch, but is perfectly legit for the agency to give more space to best sellers contributor (too much space, unbelievable space, I agree!). But how could this affect the famous "cap"? These are two really different things, and one can't work well with the other one ;-)

if you can be promoted like this, you can also be demoted. #justsayin

« Reply #68 on: November 28, 2018, 08:37 »
0
For everybody late for the party, here is a summed up with visual screenshots how SS actually works behind the scenes: https://video-stock.org/the-magic-button-at-shutterstock/

I really can't understand the link between this "magic button" for one or two contributor with the "cap theory" on other thousands of contributors.

I don't know if it's a glitch, but is perfectly legit for the agency to give more space to best sellers contributor (too much space, unbelievable space, I agree!). But how could this affect the famous "cap"? These are two really different things, and one can't work well with the other one ;-)

if you can be promoted like this, you can also be demoted. #justsayin

but the cap/safety net theory says you cannot go up or down. #justthesamemonthaftermonth

« Reply #69 on: November 28, 2018, 11:14 »
0
To me it's more interesting as to where the clips came from, as mentioned by Video-stock in the blog, it's not the usual "I got better over time" port, they seem perfectly fabricated and diverse, I wonder if their ownership was transferred from someone else.

« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2018, 11:16 »
0
To me it's more interesting as to where the clips came from, as mentioned by Video-stock in the blog, it's not the usual "I got better over time" port, they seem perfectly fabricated and diverse, I wonder if their ownership was transferred from someone else.

I wonder if they were produced by Shutterstock for Shutterstock.  Do they exist at other agencies...? 


« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2018, 12:40 »
+5
Well - this puts an end to this debate (or maybe just starting it...)
I cannot find this situation not insulting (at best) and illegal (at worst)
It's one this to create a "select" collection - many agancies did so before (P5,Dissolve)
But to throw away all other clips from the first page, a place we worked so hard for so long to get to - this is just plain disgusting.
And these clips are priced at $399 a piece.

And above all - why couldn't they just tell us the plain truth - We are promoting our "select" collection clips on the account of all others. Sorry.

Just outrageous.

Shelma1

« Reply #73 on: November 28, 2018, 13:19 »
+5
I knew their explanation was doublespeak. They've been secretly working with videographers and planned all along to push them to the top of search results. I wonder how many invited photographers and illustrators they're secretly working with now. Happy holidays!

« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2018, 13:22 »
+4
Well, that was a crappy move to pull on the long time contributors who got them where they are today. Sort of like ignoring the best of their photographers when they started offset. Hopefully they can at least dial down the oversaturation of their pet content at the top of the search.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #75 on: November 28, 2018, 13:56 »
+2
So SS have done an iStock and introduced different price points in the search.

$399 - https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1018737736-millennial-girl-shows-driving-friend-her-phone

$179 - https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-30607759-close-portrait-woman-standing-on-wind-slow

Both in 4k.

I'd have to think this will only frustrate buyers.

The saturation of the first page with their 'select' content is crazy overboard.

Oh and now there is a search filter to ONLY show select content!

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search/millennial?channel=select

« Reply #76 on: November 28, 2018, 14:18 »
+3
sounds like iShitty strategy that destroyed them. Well, I'm not surprised... I saw this coming 5 years ago. To sum up; dumping prices, capping sales, pushing selected footage up, ignoring support, rejecting randomly fine footage from bigger contributors, a lot of bugs, don't care about flood of crappy/similar media.... and it keeps going on and on.

« Reply #77 on: November 28, 2018, 16:24 »
+1
I think we're moving towards segregated content.  It seems agencies now are preferring artists be exclusive with them, or at least have some exclusive content with them.

Dissolve prefers this, so does Stocksy, and even Pond5 sort of implied this recently.  Now SS wants "high end" content for higher prices.  They say shot on "high end" gear, but I bet if you have good stuff shot on more prosumer cameras they'll eventually take it and add it to this premiere collection, so long as that content of yours is exclusive to them.

I think the days of spreading your portfolio around to get the best bang for your buck may be numbered.

« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2018, 17:28 »
0
I think we're moving towards segregated content.  It seems agencies now are preferring artists be exclusive with them, or at least have some exclusive content with them.

Dissolve prefers this, so does Stocksy, and even Pond5 sort of implied this recently.  Now SS wants "high end" content for higher prices.  They say shot on "high end" gear, but I bet if you have good stuff shot on more prosumer cameras they'll eventually take it and add it to this premiere collection, so long as that content of yours is exclusive to them.

I think the days of spreading your portfolio around to get the best bang for your buck may be numbered.

Daniel Hurst (Via Films) in the blog is not exclusive to Shutterstock.
This article is sponsored by Adobe Stock  https://library.creativecow.net/article.php?author_folder=hurst_daniel&article_folder=a_vision_for_stock_footage&page=1

Shutterstock have had segregated content with photos if not video for years with Premier and Premier Select for Enterprise clients, Adobe have Premier for theirs, Fotolia used to have infinity.  The only difference here is that these videos seem to have been dumped into the non premier pool.

« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2018, 18:34 »
0
I'm not saying be totally exclusive to any one agency, but rather have a "pool" of clips that are exclusive to certain agencies.

I've talked to Daniel, and this is what he does sometimes.  For example, his Vimeo Stock portfolio is exclusive to Vimeo, but he shoots clips for other agencies, too.

« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2018, 18:37 »
0
I'm not saying be totally exclusive to any one agency, but rather have a "pool" of clips that are exclusive to certain agencies.

I've talked to Daniel, and this is what he does sometimes.  For example, his Vimeo Stock portfolio is exclusive to Vimeo, but he shoots clips for other agencies, too.

My apologies I thought you were saying "agencies now are preferring artists be exclusive"

« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2018, 01:41 »
0
I knew their explanation was doublespeak. They've been secretly working with videographers and planned all along to push them to the top of search results. I wonder how many invited photographers and illustrators they're secretly working with now. Happy holidays!

They did partner up with a drone company called Dronebase and this was announced earlier this year, but they don't seem to have better search rankings than other contributors when looking for 'aerial'.

Link to the article: https://fstoppers.com/aerial/shutterstock-teams-dronebase-offer-hundreds-4k-drone-stock-footage-256069

Dronebase portfolio on SS: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/search?contributor=DroneBase

« Reply #82 on: November 29, 2018, 06:00 »
0
Of course you all realise that SS are just dicking us?

They don't care what we think the $ is the only thing they care about as their blog posts now testify

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/select-aila-images-stock-footage

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/via-films-stock-footage

« Reply #83 on: November 29, 2018, 06:16 »
+1
Of course you all realise that SS are just dicking us?

They don't care what we think the $ is the only thing they care about as their blog posts now testify

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/select-aila-images-stock-footage

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/via-films-stock-footage

Wow they even get their own personalised SS showreel and all.
Bye bye first page search results, it will all belong to them now.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4798 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
4823 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
12568 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
14 Replies
3884 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
2 Replies
994 Views
Last post January 18, 2018, 03:17
by SuperPhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results