I warned everybody over and over and over again years ago to prepare for what was coming. I wonder if anyone listened.

There are still a large number of people who will defend any action they take as you can see by the negative votes you received. It is called believing what you want to happen in lieu of looking at reality.

is that all MSG members?

The response or lack of, tell us everything we need to know about the future of micro.

Quote from: Rinderart on May 07, 2015, 20:02

SO....Robots are reviewing.lol probably just want to automate everything. Trouble is they can't automate us.

I don't think they are saying Robots are reviewing rather they are saying they are using statistically based sampling methods to audit quality.

I agree they seem to be talking about a data-driven application which audits, monitors and manages reviewer performance.

"we have further upgraded the ways that we review content by introducing innovative data-driven auditing to monitor and manage reviewer performance'

Whatever is happening is a result of a policy shift integrated with some form of automation. And it doesnt work and they dont care. With a bazillion images they are in a position of sustainability so to cut costs through inspection labor only adds to the bottom line. And they can simply afford the defection of uploads as a consequence of their failed system.

Its all about shareholder wealth.

We all judge the process by our experiences. To date I have not experienced an increase in rejections.

That does not mean that others are not, they could be testing segments of our population and have not rolled this out for everyone. When I experienced a downturn in sales a small segment of my friends experienced the same, over time that changed and more of us have been hit.

In any case I agree that they do not care on any level how their actions affect our workflows or income. I am more convinced everyday that my passion for stock is counter productive to my overall goals.

How is the statement an oxymoron, exactly?

If you work for shutterstock and are familiar with the process as well as the review attributes which they collect and utilize while compiling review data for this database; you would not need to guess.

If you are guessing in regard to shutterstock's review processes, are not intimately part of the process and have no knowledge of the details or review attributes collected and monitored.

Then your statement "Knowing SS they've taken a look at the percentage of rejections averaged over the years" is an oxymoron to your first statement "All I can do is guess."

Quote from: gbalex on May 06, 2015, 22:03

The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?

The answer is a resounding NO.

I am not talking about Shutterstock, but about Stocksy or other midstock agencies. Just a question, have you stopped submitting to SS and the other micros that dont pay you enough?

To a large degree Yes, I do not see micro as a productive way to spend my resources. There are too many contributors who are willing to sell the farm in the race to the bottom.

Thank you for confirming the facts. He makes $1 a year.

Quote from: gbalex on May 05, 2015, 14:56

The grant included $21.6 million in options and $5.87 million in restricted stock that would vest in 2019 if he remains employed and achieves certain performance requirements, according to its latest proxy filing.

Why Tax-Smart Billionaires Work For $1   

The non-cash equity-based compensation plus $1 salary ensures that the CEO will be looking out for shareholders.

When CEO's earn significant compensation from their companies paid almost entirely in stock options, they do so to make sure that the CEO will focus on inflating the value of the company�s stock.  Compensation tied to performance is a good deal for both company and exec for multiple reasons.

It is also a  tax game. The IRS  has labeled excessively high CEO compensation unreasonable and as a result they have levied extra taxes against them.  And excessive salary's can�t be deducted from the company�s taxes. In fact, most public companies face a limit on pay deductions of $1 million per employee.

Problems always have solutions and the bean counters and attorneys have devised the $1 wage to avoid the compensation tax problem.

When an executive takes $1 cash compensation plus considerable non-cash compensation like options and stock, the IRS levies significantly less taxes. Companies leverage this tax advantage by paying key players with options, stock and dividends not as pay, the tax rates on these are better than a straight forward salary. What�s more, the taxes on non-cash equity-based stock compensation are shared by the employer and the employee.

Not claiming anything to be fact but if I compare these prices to what I still see

199 euro for 750 month = 0.27 c/i
165 euro for 350 month = 0.47 c/i

Shutterstock gave themselves a 20 cent raise per image. And nuttin' for us. So it seems.

New pricing?


Old pricing

They stiffed us on the raise and now they are sneaking in hidden royalty decreases.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 30, 2015, 15:52

so who's the math genius here...
what is $28 million divided by the number of ss contributors???
expect that to be added to each of our may's earning
as profit-sharing or just plain decent share-the-wealth
with those who really made you rich(er)
p.s. thx arenacreative for the moving ants idea, i like them better than just color and size

$28,000,000  /  70,000+ active contributors  = $400 

You forgot to include the larger bonus Jon took just after the IPO and the one after that. 

And you forgot to add in SSTK stock options at a cost to key players & Insight Venture Capitol of $0.

I quit keeping track months ago, but at that time the key players excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 that would amount to $1,144,929,800.00

Then you need to add in the millions Jon pulled out soon after the IPO

Given the reality of the situation $400 is way off!

Jon is no Dan Price

What we can learn from the CEO who took a 93% pay cut to give his team a raise
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/14/news/companies/ceo-pay-cuts-pay-increases/

"Ask yourself what is the right thing for you to do"

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 24, 2015, 00:28

Image approved this morning already online. The others images are not there yet approved 2 days ago. That's not good. They're dead and buried when they get online.

Oh, really? then it's better to delete and resubmit them. I'm waiting for 3 days now. 

There have been lags of more than two weeks reported in the main missing image bug thread and shutterstocks official response was to say that deletions/resubmissions are explicitly forbidden.

Basically if our/SS system is faulty and your images do not sell because they become buried TS.

Profit/greed is a nasty filthy thing. We all love having  money but it brings the worst out of people and companies. 3 letters that will change everything. I P O

I quit keeping track months ago but at that time the key players excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 that would amount to $1,144,929,800

The last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern is driving stock prices up, as they are in this for the short term.

I hope they keep the old forums as an online archive somewhere and don�t begin the next 15 years by destroying their own history.

Fotolia and SS are doing a much better job at community building these days and it shows in their commercial success as well. These things go hand in hand. Understanding people goes all around, from customers to suppliers and the contributors are both.

I would say the majority of the microstock community has become immune to Microstock Kool-Aid.  The sites do appreciate wooo yay comments, which facilitate attracting new contributors to the table.

However wooo yay's are few are far between on any of the site forums these days and forums are losing their luster in regard to owners.