Hashtag spamming at its best. Some lead to empty profiles, some to very random pictures

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

I have another idea...

Maybe several contributors are non-native english (as me) and maybe several of them also just dont speak english, we can create several posts in different languages and write in these languages posts in SS forum with specific link to the post in this forum that speak about the actions to do in specific language.

This makes a lot of sense, especially if these posts were also on facebook, twitter and everywhere else. Could be the reason we can't spread the word widely

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

The bigger problem is that SS seems to be betting on all of us pouring energy initially and then getting tired and coming back to them like beaten sheep.

The question is how do we ensure we migrate money & spends to where it helps us also.
- App ratings influence buyers
- Honest reviews that SS keeps charging even after a subscription ends also moves them
- Lets also push the positive, how good Adobe/Pond5 is
- Maybe a dialogue with Adobe, Pond5 could help start a buyer referral scheme, I'm sure even the non active folks would push buyers there for a chance to earn (incidentally something SS did well)
- How do we stop being faceless to the buyers?

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Has anyone noticed A LOT of random people spamming the shutterstock hashtag on twitter posting their portfolio (most of the portfolios are empty) and many (very badly written) paid articles talking about how awesome SS is

Examples for your enjoyment

https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Just disabled my account. Wrote SS a little letter as well. Kinda goes without saying its a bit like Winston in 1984 level of drop in the bucket in the middle of the Pacific, however needed to have a personal emotional venting.

One thing I have noticed that there's very little talk about is the ridiculous 4K video subscription plan which allows customers, who surely aren't that honest regarding usage, to get high quality video, in bulk, for rock bottom prices. I feel they could have taken a half measure on this one and made the price competitive enough that it wouldn't be a fire sale, but would be low enough to increase the net profit based on increased volume.

So far with photo, the ODD's are seeming to make up for the crappy sub downloads, and although I need more time to see the results and calculate, I think my revenue has increased in terms of photo. Come Jan though, I won't be singing that tune I think.

Anyway, I think the real big steal here is video, and no one seems to be talking about it. Anyone wants to contribute their 2 cents to this....

That is combined with the really crazy levels for video. You get 35% for images on crossing 2500 sales, however for video that number is 5000 sales?

WHY, does vid suddenly start selling more than images at the 30% level? Did some intern just dream up the numbers after a night out. Or did they want to share a very explicit middle finger to vid contributors (you'll never get above 30% HAR HAR)

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Continue to downvote all their actions on social media.

Can we also rate their apps on google play store and istore, it should be a callout everywhere.

 People started that and the main app dropped from 4 to 3.5 stars and SS started using bought reviews to pad it up. So its definitely something they care about and is very visible.

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Back to the topic at hand, my overall income drop using the excel is -20%, but while the number makes it seem like a small drop the analysis is scary
- For most days, my numbers are almost 60% down, these are high image subscription sale days
- One day has a +100%, mainly because there is a subscription sale at 0.83c my guess is a mislabeled SOD (since SS confirmed it had misreportings in the in first few days)
- Again my highest contributing day is -20% since there was a video sale which at my current level gives me 25% vs the old 30% since the amount is high this brings my total almost to -20% itself.

Problems
- My image income since it's mostly subscription is a total washout
- Video sales may save it for now, but come jan this will be a washout as well
- The mix could change at anytime with lower subscriptions and we'll be stuck

TLDR : In my port there is NO EVIDENCE that getting to level 5 or 6 will REWARD me more than before

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/08/is-this-the-end-of-microstock-photography/

Surprisingly seems pretty biased, have put in a comment to clear the air, would request that others drop them a comment as well. Maybe we can get an edited version thats more truthful

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false


Badass post if true

This is incredible stuff

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2020/shutterstock-shafts-contributors/

Very strongly worded

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

I monitor at least 100 searches of interest in terms of saturation to keep track of supply vs demand. After all those people "deactivating" I ended up seeing a steady increase in shutterstock saturation this week in all my hot searches like nothing ever changed. If 60% of contributors had deactivated portfolios like stated here, it would have reflected on the number of the provided images.

Especially for newbies, don't believe everything you read in here. I don't think everybody is honest. Many are here just to collect information and not in spirit to team up.

I think a large chunk is just waiting for their money to be paid out. Its crazy how SS has been reacting to things

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Wind of portfolios being disabled has reached the investor community - in a Seeking Alpha article about Shutterstock's dividend. I submitted a comment explaining that the fury and exodus of portfolios is very real

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3579529-shutterstock-goes-ex-dividend-tomorrow

Anyone else want to help investors understand how Shutterstock's idiot move has damaged the company?

Amazing Jo Ann, seems the investing community is taking notice. The shared intelligence bit is very true and at this time when the indexes themselves seem overbought investors will be wary of where they invest.

Warren buffet and many other big investors have moved to cash holding and others will do so too if they find any hint of weakness in a stock.

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 30, 2020, 05:22

Quote from: blue on May 30, 2020, 04:53

Quote from: somethingpretentious on May 29, 2020, 23:57

If a subscriber uses half of the downloads allowed, the commission paid out to contributors from this subscriber will be half of the numbers posted by Shutterstock.
So in this case, if you are at tier 1 you will receive 7.5%, and if you are tier 6 you will receive 20%.

I think you are misleading : the percentages are fixed (they are what SS says they are) BUT it is the price per file which varies whether the subscription is used in its entirety or not. That's the tricky point !

I don't think it is misleading at all. You will be receiving 7.5% in any meaningful way. What is misleading is saying we will receive 15%.

Otherwise what would 100% constitute? How can we be receiving 15% if for example SS is receiving 13X (roughly in the above example) what we receive? It makes no sense and is just smoke and mirrors.

That's why a core demand has to be that % must mean percentage of what has actually been paid for that license or everything else goes out of the window. We wont even have a foundation to negotiate from and packages can be manipulate to s**ew us on an ongoing basis.

That and the January reset has to go. For top tier contributor that will mean a more than 50% pay cut from December to January. Honestly that can only have been though up by millionaires who have no idea how we peons survive in the real world.

I really believe this is important to understand: The real commission percentages are not fixed even though most contributors talk about them as if they were. Here is an example to illustrate this point:

A client buys a subscription for 199$ per month that allows up to 350 image downloads per month. That is 2388 $ per year, with up to 4200 image downloads allowed.

Consider case 1 where this client uses all downloads. The client has in this case paid 0.57$ per image. At tier 1, 15% would give the contributor 0.085$ per image. But since Shutterstock has set a minimum of 0.10$ pr image you will actually be getting 18% at tier 1. At tier 6, 40% results in 0.23$ pr image download for the contributor.

Now consider case 2 where this client only downloaded 10% of the maximum allowed images. The client has in this case paid 5.69 $ per image. At tier 1, if the commission was truly 15%, contributors should receive 0.85$ per image download on average. At tier 6, 40%, the contributors should receive 2.27$ per image download on average. But this is not how the contributors will be compensated in this case. Instead they will be paid exactly the same amount as in case 1, resulting in an effective average real commission percentage of 0.10/5.69 = 1.8% at tier 1 and 0.23/5.69  = 4% real commission percentage at tier 6.

The truth is that the average probably is somewhere between case 1 and case 2.

Subscriptions are, from a revenue perspective, designed in a way that takes into account that the average client does not download the full amount allowed. Why are we pretending that they do when calculating and talking about contributor commissions? Agencies with this type of commission model have an incentive to push clients towards the products with the largest difference between maximum allowed downloads and actual downloads used by the clients. This way, the agency will pay a lower real commission percentage to the contributor. In practice, this means pushing clients away from smaller image packages and towards larger subscriptions. 

The table may be a fine way to explain how the commissions are calculated, but the percentages at each tier simply does not represent the real commission percentage contributors will receive. This is a fact. Contributors will receive less in commission than the numbers in the table indicate. I don�t see how this can be up for debate.

Took some time but i understood it this time. So obviously shutterstock has everything to gain in this game while we stay "occupied" with 10c, sales since they get us closer to a higher level and hopefully more payout. Talk about chasing a mirage

All the while they "upgrade" consumers to higher size subscription packs telling us that its so we can increase volume so you can get to the 40% faster

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk