MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rcnyc

Pages: 1 [2]
26
Yes, its about self respect, not about thinking any agency gives a rats ass if you stay or go. Good post!

I wonder if you and the five people that +1 your comment or self respect actually read what the OP suggest: leaving Shutter (correct) but also stop contributing to ALL other agencies (really?)

Quote
2. Don't even think of "jumping ship" to Adobe or any other site. (...) In two years, three years, maybe five, they will do the same thing. Trust me on this.

I would trust him/her if he/she compensated me for those two three next years lost sales from Adobe and others.

I'm not understanding this comment at all. Are you saying that the only way you'd trust what I'm saying is if I paid you to compensate for lost sales at Adobe and other sites? What on earth does that mean?

27
So, it's been a week since SS dropped its bombshell announcement. The most frustrating thing to me about this entire affair isn't the announcement but the stubborn refusal on so many people to wake up and realize that all of these crowdsourcing sites and platforms offering people "opportunities" are part of an elaborate scam.

How do I know this is all a scam? I was part of many similar "crowdsourcing/affiliate marketing/make money at home" ventures going back to 2000 (yes, that far back). And what I noticed over the years is that what seems to be an isolated "bad decision" at one site's part is always part of a larger industry-wide trend/pattern playing across multiple platforms in the exact same way.

For example, starting in 2019, other sites have also "pulled an SS." After spending years encouraging people to work their fingers to the bone, sites like Amazon, YouTube, etc. also started slashing rates for their oldest, most dedicated contributors and affiliates. 

Is it coincidence? No. It's all part of a long, elaborate con by ALL of these sites. It works something like this:

1. Create a tech platform enticing people to join, convincing them that they're going to "be their own bosses" and make more money than if they had gone through old school/traditional channels (stock agencies, ad agencies, publishing houses, etc.).

2. Pay them just enough money to make joining worthwhile, but not what they are really worth. Convince them that they'll eventually earn what they're worth if they "chase the carrot" (as in work even harder than ever in the way of "volume.")[/li][/list]

3. Design the platform's algorithm or pay structure in such a way where payout works like a pyramid scheme, where only a few contributors/affiliates/gig workers really make money to become financially independent. Trot these high earners out to further encourage the vast majority of contributors to chase the carrot, as in, "If you work even harder for us, you'll be making $1M a year, too!" Sit back and watch as the vast majority of contributors, affiliates, etc. wind up building 98% of the business while being paid pennies.

4. Go public and get valuated at $10B or more on Wall Street.

5. Start acquiring other businesses to boost valuation and profit.

6. Flush with cash, start cutting the lowest members of the pyramid scheme--the very people who built your business--off. Except instead of having the guts to say, "We just used you all to help build our business and don't need you anymore," do the passive-aggressive thing of slashing commission and rates to discourage them into quitting.

What is the point of me posting this?

1. If you're going to delete or disable your portfolio, do it for the right reasons. Definitely do it out of self respect, because you value your time, etc. But don't do it thinking that you're "sticking" it to SS and will tank the company. SS and all of these other companies purposely slashed its rates to make you leave and have all their ducks in a row financially. Even if SS tanked, everyone there made more money than God, so would be laughing to the bank, anyway.

2. Don't even think of "jumping ship" to Adobe or any other site. The reason why I say that is that all of these gig/crowdsourcing companies are the same. They're just at different stages of "the con." Meaning, they may look good to you because they haven't slashed rates. But they haven't slashed rates because they're haven't reached that stage of the con...yet. In two years, three years, maybe five, they will do the same thing. Trust me on this.

If you really want to make a difference, if you really want to make a change, here's what you can do:


1. As so many people have brilliantly done, start targeting buyers with negative PR about SS. Let them know that they're supporting an exploitative industry.

2. Stop uploading anywhere for the time being + encourage everyone else to do the same. If quitting cold turkey is too much to bear, then just upload your average shots to microstock agencies. But stop uploading your very best work to any of them. Your absolute best work should only be uploaded to your personal blog or website with a watermark.

28
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf

I think it just takes time until they are gradually removed from search indexing?

Deleting a portfolio of 400,000 images, one image at a time, is certainly not feasible in a few days... Especially since he will certainly have other things to do.

He might have assistants.

29
I disabled my port today. I didn't have many images (I had quit uploading years ago), so it was a drop in the bucket and small potatoes compared to the major leaguers at SS. However, I had steady performers that had been earning consistent sales year in and year out since they were uploaded 10 years ago and did so well that they were copied to hell and back by other contributors.

30
I disabled my portfolio this morning and am scrambling to figure out how to delete everything.

31
Personally I believe that the American system of Capitalism seems to have become corrupted, mostly they act like the Mafia in a Martin Scorsese film.

Everything that you say is true about American companies but I take exception with you calling this "American style of capitalism."

It's not only not American, it's not capitalist. What you're talking about is neoliberalism, which has its roots in Ayn Rand (a Russian) and was introduced into both the US and the UK via Reaganomics and Thatcherism in the 1980s, then later propagandized via Rupert Murdoch media. Neoliberalism also took hold in many countries, but not to the extreme as it has in the US. (See David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism.")

Neoliberalism has been such a deeply entrenched part of UK politics that it was neoliberals that drove the Brexit movement. The idea was to free UK companies from the EU, which is staunchly anti-neoliberal and was trying to reign in abuses via heavy regulation. This was what was meant by "gaining our sovereignty back." They didn't mean it in a political but business sense, as in neoliberal corporations gaining their right to practice business free of EU restrictions.

32
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 26, 2020, 13:04 »
Okay, so I know I'm a new member here and might come across as a little brash but I'm speaking as someone who joined SS from the beginning and pretty much retired years ago when I saw what was going on at the company. I also have some insight into the mindset of how these Silicon Valley companies are operating and why SS is doing this.

Some of you are claiming that SS is being run to the ground. On the contrary, it's the opposite. Let me explain:

All of these tech-based companies are in effect MLM/ pyramid schemes but under the guise of offering you an "equal shot" at earning a living as a freelancer/independent contractor. By that I mean, you may have been promised the moon, stars and the sun, told that if you "worked hard enough" at SS, you could make a lot of money. But like any MLM/pyramid scheme, this was a ruse. The way these companies are structured is that only a few elite contributors/freelancers/etc. always earn the bulk of the money--and revenue--for the company. The vast majority of freelancers, contributors, etc. work like dogs chasing a carrot stick hoping to hit it big but never do. Ironically, it's this vast majority that winds up creating the bulk of the business for the site in the way of contributions, referrals, etc.

This is how microstock, YouTube, Uber, Amazon affiliate program, etc. work. Incentivize a large number of people to work their backsides off to build the business up with "contributions", referrals, etc. promising them huge rewards. However, only give a small tier of people--an elite tier--a bulk of the rewards.

Over time, when these companies have enough "top tier" contributors to keep the business afloat, they start cutting everyone else except those top tier contributors. Except instead of these companies having the guts to go, "We no longer need you low tier contributors anymore, so buh-bye suckers," they take the weasel way out. They make dramatic changes to their payment system purposely designed to get the lowest tier contributors to quit. I guess the equivalent to this in the work world is if a boss too cowardly to fire an employee outright does the passive-aggressive thing of first cutting insurance benefits, then cutting hours, then banishing the person to the late shift.

If you think of pulling out because of this latest change, it would be the right thing to do on principle (I plan to pull out soon myself). But don't think for a second that you'll be "crippling" the company or making a statement. SS implemented these changes precisely to encourage you to pull out. The only reason why you should pull out is out of self respect but not for any other reason.

The point of all of this isn't to deflate anyone's sails but to warn everyone not to put your faith in any of these Silicon Valley companies when it comes to your work. Don't, in other words, think, "Well, let me jump ship to XYZ. It'll be better." All of these companies operate according to this same mindset. If a company looks good now, it's only because it hasn't reached the level of cutting its lowest tier contributors and freelancers loose yet. It will happen, so it's not a question of if but how long you'll be able to enjoy being at a new place before that happens.

Pages: 1 [2]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors