Do you really think it is so simple as your port dying once the new contributor bump expires?  I suspect the bump is now longer than it used to be.

If your images are well above average, your initial bump will give your port the momentum to last a few years, once you hit 38 cents. And once your images hit shutterstocks predetermined kill switch age. Your best selling images will be demoted overnight to Dante's lowest levels in the search; never to be seen again. Imagine your surprise when new images also find poor placement in the search.

So you think you have any control over your earnings....
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/75288-so-you-think-you-have-any-control-over-your-earnings/

Quote from: Hongover on July 17, 2015, 23:35

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 17, 2015, 22:38

Quote from: Hongover on July 17, 2015, 22:32
Let's say that an agency give us a platform and contributors set their own prices for their images. That would change the entire market, better for some, worst for others. I would be able to charge more for my unique images, while the value of certain images would fall even further. Every contributor would try to outbid each other and devalue each others images in the process.

It's called Pond5.  It didn't really change the market in any way.

QuoteDon't believe it? Look at the App Store. People are so used to getting free apps, they rarely pay for apps anymore. If there are 30,000 strawberry images on the platform and one photographer decides to sell a high quality one for $.10, it would shoot up the rankings and devalue the everything in its category in the process. Next, everyone else will follow and it becomes a race to the bottom...at light speed. Suddenly, entire portfolio lose value faster than stocks in 2008.

Your app experience doesn't necessarily translate to image licensing, as Pond shows.  People still spend $1000 for images there.

QuoteThe reality is that agencies are better than photographers at pricing. If contributors have pricing control, we would destroy ourselves and ruin the market in the process. Right now, I don't see agencies as my obstacle. I see myself as an obstacle. I see my competitors as they are...competitors. There is so much supply right now and that's not the fault of agencies...that's our problem. We just have to get even better at it, think more about images and try to produce amazing work.

So, too much supply is the problem, and the suggestion is "make more"?

There are $1000 apps, for studying for Bar Exams. If something is unique enough, people will pay for it. And those come once in a blue moon.

Pond5 is struggling to get traffic right now, well below that of even Creative Market, another place where you can set your own prices. And contributors are struggling to get sales on photos. Reason: probably because contributors set prices way above market value. It needs an agency the size of SS to truly test a free market behavioral system with high competition.

I believe the market is always hungry, but for certain type of images. New markets are constantly created and they need certain type of images. I don't subscribe to the idea of "more" as much as I am in the idea of "creating more to feed a very hungry market".

I would encourage you to listen to Sean, he has light years more experience than you do.  Hopefully you will not be too discouraged when your new contributor search bump expires.

Disappointing, showing little regard for existing users with little customization beyond the existing forum package set up.

The areas that most contributors visit often, are located at the bottom of the main page. And the thread content that they threw in various categories does not match their forum content descriptions.  Looks like they did not even read the threads and just threw them around willynilly. Pathetic how little regard they had for the content in recent forum conversations.

The new forum could have used a good  Interaction and Interface Designer.  The critique forum is a complete mess. What were they thinking??? Did they give it any thought at all?

The one area that looks like some thought has been put behind it, is the New Contributor Support Center. Once again resources and care are spent attracting and encouraging new contributors. http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/75193-visit-our-new-contributor-support-center/

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 17, 2015, 15:15
They have up and down votes for posts, and what are warning points?

They seem to want to go social - friends, friends' comments on your profile, show who your friends are....

As if  it were not clicky enough. I can see the main site, but the links still time out, even when trying w7lwi tip. Thanks for that by the way, but still not working for me.

Every link in the new forum that I tried to open, timed out.  Does not look to be functional at the moment.

Snip

The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.

Quote from: PZF on July 15, 2015, 07:25
so certainly pressure to give precedence to 25cents offerings.....

What a fortuitous coincidence that shutterstocks Top 50 most popular pages irrevocably "broke" just as they rolled out the IPO and new search. Amazing that the pages worked flawlessly for over 9 years and could not be fixed over the last three years by a self purported technology company.

All of this just as a huge number of exclusive IS contributors jumped ship and long standing shutterstock members started reporting sudden overnight steep drops in downloads.

The transparency was nice while it lasted.

Quote from: DesE on July 13, 2015, 07:08
Also decline here, no matter if upload or not, go more exclusive or not, its the same downward trend. SS is the only one I care about since it accounts for probably 80% of my microstock earnings. FT is much worse btw and other agencies are of no more importance to me.
Good luck to those who are starting out and want to take this business seriously, yikes!
This business is dying for many of us so now is probably the best time to seek other outlets for your stock/art and react to the decline by holding uploads or removing work from portfolio's. If we keep whining while continue uploading or keeping our work online the agencies get the upper hand and continue their path of greed, simple as that.
The ones doing well in micro these days are becoming very rare. It's just not worth the time and effort anymore unless you live in a lower standard country or use this as a hobby.
I've seen people brag about their sales on the SS forum but these guys upload fine art (ex skylines and landscapes) that are probably bought for a few pennies and then sold on print for hundreds of dollars. I do not envy them, on the contrary, I pity them for thinking they make good money while they don't have a clue what they leave on the table.
Others invest more then they get out of this by renting models, locations, props, gear and what not.
It's always a lose-lose situation for us no matter how you look at it.
Not to mention why we are so eager to put each other down instead of being more unite. The action that many (including myself) took towards DPC was a good example of how we should react to these manipulations.
If more established contributors would come forward people would realise this decline is spread out amongst many and we need to do something about it. But no, they rather hide in the corner and pray for better times again or that it will only affect their fellow contributors. Some pro's, afraid for retaliation so they rather keep their pants down and bent over.

Completely agree, great post!

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 11, 2015, 19:20
There's a big difference between expressing disagreement about business practices and coming here to spew bigotry and misogyny. That's why the people who disagree with each other, even when they have obvious business agendas, haven't been banned, but Titus has...over and over again.

It seems like every time I sign in to this forum you are accusing yet another member of being this person who for whom you have intense distain. Last time it was easy to see that he was not who you claimed because had been a member for years and had a full port on Pond. Yet to my knowledge you did not apologize for the insults you hurled his way.

You also attack anyone who voices their concerns in regard to the negative business choices shutterstock has made.

All this bickering and yet no one seems to notice that several MSG members render the topic a moot point.

How many people do you suppose got sick of defending views that are not popular with the crowd who only accepts positive pro micro crowd speak and therefore changed their identity. I also know a formerly well respected member who left because they got sick of being personally attacked for not opting out of DPC.

I seem to remember the same type conflicts erupting here when IS started it's decline. You had promotional minded members defending anything IS did, while attacking other members for speaking their minds about IS's ugly business decisions.

The business climate has changed and it does not always bring out the best in us.

Quote from: stockastic on July 09, 2015, 23:36
The only thing that ever really rankled me here was the brouhaha about how MSG should start requiring posters to reveal their real identity.   Some of those self-righteous rants about 'hiding behind anonymity' started to get under my skin.   But in the end it's all just text on a screen, isn't it?

Unfortunately some of those rants were more personal attacks and if memory serves some of the more vocal ranters against anonymous posters; were eventually permanently booted from sites for openly criticizing said sites.

Quote from: dirkr on July 07, 2015, 20:22

Quote from: tickstock on July 07, 2015, 19:55

Quote from: gbalex on July 07, 2015, 19:09

Quote from: tickstock on July 07, 2015, 16:41

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 07, 2015, 16:19
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.

It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.

If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.

I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.

That's the only way things will change.  There's a lot of talk in here about buyers being trained to think images should be free (even if they are only able to be legally used on a noncommercial site and would be a pain to steal) but only positive things to say about the Facebook deal that makes images free to actual buyers.  Yes you get paid for the use (a commercial use) but the issue that seems to be brought up here is that buyers will think they are free.  Headlines like this are seen as great news: "Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers" strange times indeed.

I agree.
Removing the portfolio from IS is the only way to fight the worst deal in the industry.
I did so when they told us that keeping 80% to themselves was "unsustainable" so they had to lower our rates.

Yes I agree, we need to take a hard line with all of the sites and hold them all, individually accountable for devaluing our assets. The plundering of our assets with no accountability has to end soon or there will be nothing left for us to protect.

Quote from: stockastic on July 07, 2015, 00:59
MSG has gone quiet because the business is stagnant.   SS now controls the market - they don't get all the sales, but they're the ones controlling price.  And they're systematically reducing opportunity for contributors instead of creating it.   I think a bigger shakeout and consolidation is coming, following which royalties will decline even further (behind the usual cover of subscriptions, 'special deals' and 'partnerships').  Some of that decline will simply be from inflation, as the cost of living goes up - and actual prices to buyers increase - while royalties won't.

So it's a period of discouragement, and while a better platform for image sales will certainly appear some day, it isn't even on the horizon yet.

It's still possible to make money, of course, but nothing is changing, so there's less to discuss.

Good post, I agree.

Quote from: tickstock on July 07, 2015, 16:41

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 07, 2015, 16:19
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.

It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.

If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.

I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 16:14

Quote from: tickstock on July 02, 2015, 15:46

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 02, 2015, 15:43
And all or nothing is the Getty way (their April 2011 contract changes). SS is a big dog now and figures it can get away with it without losing any (or many) contributors.

All or nothing is every agency's agreement since the beginning of time, when did you ever get to pick and choose which parts an the agreement you wanted to follow and which ones you could ignore?

Never. But those aren't the only two choices.

There were many times in the early days of microstock agencies that groups of contributors nudged the agencies to change terms in the TOS when we weren't happy with them. And they did. That's obviously ancient history now and the agencies are big and profitable enough that they don't bend or negotiate or in any other way consider contributors' interests.

Not such ancient history, we recently demanded an opt out for DPC and got it. We just need to be as proactive as the Russian community recently was.

If we tell ourselves over and over that we can't, we make that reality true by our own actions.

The truth is, WE CAN

Quote from: Pixart on July 02, 2015, 06:58
Just a thought, but I wonder if there is a sale in the future and they are trying to wrap up some legacy business - maybe payout and close stagnant accounts.

I wondered the same thing, keep asking myself why they would reverse historical policy on keeping the money tied up and earning interest etc.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 01, 2015, 18:40
Very Strange indeed. Why did they tell us we still own our copyrights and what does that have to do with the lower payment level.

And why lower to $35? I understand some say financial, but how many people are unable to make the $75 target? I mean is $35 going to be life changing for someone, for one month? I sure hope not. I have mine set at $100 because I like the number.

Maybe there are thousands of people who can't make the $75 goal and there are tens of thousands of dollars owed, just sitting for years?

As far as I can see, none of the new terms have any effect on my licensing and if one of those magic Editorial to Commercial conversions ever happens, for what I sell, I'd be very surprised.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 01, 2015, 15:55
I received e-mail from SS this morning about the TOS change and the wording seemed really strange:

"We've revised the
Contributor Terms of Service

We've given you the option to lower the minimum payout amount from $75 to $35. You still own your work and copyrights, and your agreement with Shutterstock is still non-exclusive."

There was a Learn More button underneath.

Why would they feel the need to say we still own our copyrights - when was that ever even a question?

It will be interesting what they have to say about this in their next 10Q earnings call.

Quote from: jeffbanke on July 01, 2015, 05:53

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 22, 2015, 23:29

Quote from: stockastic on June 22, 2015, 23:26
For a long time now, the trend in corporate communications has been to say less and less in public, and to respond to questions by simply repeating previous statements while saying nothing of substance.  I think eliminating the role of these reps was just the next logical step.  There is really no need for these agencies to communicate with photographers at all; we're not their customers.

Until the day comes we all have enough and walk. Then the CEOs and the like will come begging.

I don't think they will come begging, they operate a pyramid scheme, always some new suckers out there who will just love to get their images seen. Many of us are at the point with the stupidity of reviewers that we are ready to dump them anyway.

They simply do not care. It is evident when they will not even listen to the folks who have helped thousands and thousands of new contributors gain the skills & insight they need to be accepted as contributors.

Now that they have what they believe to be sufficient training in place through the blog, community leaders, vids and skillfeed. The people who helped them become successful in the first place are all expendable.

In fact I think they are hoping older contributors disappear, if they replace us with new contributors, it is less out of pocket. 

I won't be clicking the I understand buttons until the page is fully functional and up to date on July 29th.

Looks to me like they are still working on getting the final version ready.

Quote from: Batman on June 30, 2015, 01:04
You mean like Semmick when he was the self appointed rep. for Ireland. SS was smart enough to steer clear of that. They must read forums and see how some people are high risk. Yourself included for your never ending attack on anything SS.

I don't feel the need to trash talk Ron, I tell him what I believe when we disagree. We have butted heads here on the MSG forums many times, but over the last year I think he has done a good job of showing respect to me and other people here on the boards. We frequently agree and disagree and I think that is healthy.

As for your comment about me, I will take your comment as a compliment. If I were going to promote any company as a "Community Leader". I would need to be able to look each person I attracted to join thru the position in the eye and feel that the investment in time, talent, and funds they would personally choose to make, as a result of my involvement; would be beneficial to them in the long term.

Rather than take things at face value when shutterstock went public, I spent time to find out where we stand as contributors. I have taken the time to find out who joined shutterstock as key business decision makers as a result of the IPO. And I take time to read the financial reports and PR shutterstock is producing to attract investors. I think this is important for my own port, because shutterstock's key business insiders determine the future value of the assets we produce. And because they hold a large share of the market their business decisions, also affect the value of our assets on other micro & macro sites.

As a result of my research, I would not choose to be a Community Leader at a company that chooses to devalue our assets to gain market share. I would choose the welfare of my friends & colleges over any monetary or others benefits I might gain any day.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 03:57
Not knowing the deal, I can't say how it was worked out.

The point is, these were not just moved without notice and everyone who has their collection on BS was notified in advance. Some might be moved off SS, some not, that's not important. Just a detail.

If these were sold at the basic sub rate on BS, people would make about 40c a DL at the usual SS 20% rate. (just a rough number, but it points out how standard commissions wouldn't work) Hardly enough for anyone to want to take the deal. There must have been some very enticing offer made, for the people who did allow this.

In fact, lets say the artists got 100%, that's still only $2.76 a DL? Hardly worth it for HD video.

Meanwhile, No I wouldn't go exclusive on SS if they ever offered it. Well maybe, if they offered four times the commissions that I currently get.  Might be that Jon already figured that out and they wouldn't want exclusive artists because it would cut into the company profits too much. Better play is spin the answer into something positive, and tell us why we wouldn't want to do it either.

Yes I agree, I think it must have been different for everyone and they did know upfront and agreed to it.

I would not be surprised as part of the agreement they were required to sign an NDA, thus the lack of details. 

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 30, 2015, 02:22
For you and anyone else who's confused about this deal. They were contacted in advance and paid something, to have their collections removed from SS and exclusively on BS - for a low subscription price.

It appears that no one who took the deal is talking and if someone refused, they could at least help with some numbers. But we have nothing.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/bigstock-video/

Artists approved this deal in advance. We don't know how much or what the deal was. Only that the subs were very inexpensive.

Starter is 25 videos for $69 or $2.76 a download?

Quote from: ShadySue on June 29, 2015, 09:07

Quote from: gbalex on June 29, 2015, 07:18
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What was their ostensible reason for paying them to remove their ports?
Did your friends sue them over this?

I don't think that was the deal for everyone, some of the ports on BS are still on SS. The fact that they carried this out on BS turned me off to uploading more vids on SS.

Quote from: Milinz on June 30, 2015, 01:15
Lisa left because of people like you.

People on SS who sold out their collection of video to BS for a payment or continuing payments were asked and accepted the terms. Before the video showed up  on BS. I don't like the cheap subs but I don't know how much the contract was for "your friends" who you claim to know, but they didn't tell you anything. Just as good as you making it up, as usual. If you had facts I'd read with interest. You have a guess, no information. Your guess is of course negative against SS.

Speaking of people hired by an agency. Somebody said you were an owner in a major agency and that's why you come to bash SS so much? Is that true? He swears it's a fact top ten agency major player. Are you a partner or owner in a big agency?

Your really off base here, Lisa and I talked often and I can assure you I am not the reason she left.

I also do not own or work for any agency, but I am disgusted by the moves shutterstock has made, how those moves have affected people I have watched work hard for years as well as other agencies.

If more people stood up to the agencies who take advantage of our complacency, I think the agencies would not be taking the liberties they do with our assets. Look how well it is working out for us.

I would not go into the particulars of anyone's business, I think that should be left to them. I am sure it was different for everyone depending on the size and content of their ports and the average sales numbers for that port. The deal stinks for the industry as a whole pure and simple.

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 29, 2015, 21:31

Quote from: gbalex on June 29, 2015, 17:39

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 29, 2015, 17:23

Quote from: gbalex on June 29, 2015, 17:15

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community

Anyone who is still having  love affair with any of the agencies is kidding themselves.  Your linked article is a good example.  Wasn't this same person deeply devoted to another agency a couple years ago?  Maybe some people have a strong need to belong to something.  I know people who are the same way devoted to sports teams.

These stock sites are all out for their profits,  not ours.  It is foolish to form emotional attachment to any of them.  And to heckle people who are skeptics is short sighted. May skeptics here have been proved right in time.

Yes IS history repeating itself on other sites, the people who thought they would garner preferential treatment @ IS by training their competitors, eventually had to deal with the reality of the situation. Not surprised to see the scenario repeat itself on other sites.

If you do a search on this site you can see contributors being lambasted for simply stating the truth in regard to IS. Virulent supporters defended the site, while also demeaning those who challenged its actions; until the bitter end.

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 29, 2015, 17:23

Quote from: gbalex on June 29, 2015, 17:15

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.

If this offer was made, I am glad most had the sense to say no.

On the other issue of employees heckling, I doubt if any one forum member would be targeted by employees.  Bit paranoid there.  But seems possible there are employees who steer conversations away from criticisms of their agencies.

I agree they don't have to because many sites have the equivalent of Shutterstock's Community Leaders, most of whom have been members here for some time. They have them set up for each country.

http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/introducing-guerilla-shutterwalks-how-to-organize-a-shoot-in-your-community

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 29, 2015, 16:55

Quote from: gbalex on June 29, 2015, 07:18
In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What??!!!  They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock?  That's a terrible move on your friends parts.  They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this.  Could you explain more?

Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders.  I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.

Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV.  If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt.  Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment. 

I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights.  There is no need to choose.  Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.

Lisa and quite a few like her went by the wayside as a result of the mentality on this forum. Some of them used to tell me they thought the sites had employees sign up to heckle their opinions for obvious reasons.

I do not know the particulars and I did not ask, if they had wanted me to have more info they would have offered it. I did look at other ports on BS a few months ago and of the ports I checked the majority of them are still on shutterstock.