Still, this thread has wandered a bit, as SS specifically want people in Europe for these posts. Wonder why?
And are trialling the all-month subs only in the US and Canada. (Prsumably the vast bulk of their market?)

Because the reviews are regional. If you live Europe your images are reviewed by someone in your region of Europe.

If you live in the states your images are reviewed by someone in your region. If you notice the job board for shutterstock they are advertising for reviewers in various regions of the US.

Hasn't it always been like this in microstock?  Guess who would be paying for it if the sites had professional reviewers and paid them properly.

Agreed, I thought this was common knowledge that all of the sites use at home workers who use their own non standardized equipment.

The drop in sales for the older contributors can come back to it being their own fault I went and checked on a bunch of their ports and here is what I found.

IPYU is Images per year uploaded average

IPW is Images per week

4365 images
545.625 IPYU
Member since 2006
10.49 IPW


1588 images
226.857 IPYU
Member since 2007
4.362 IPW


2938 images
419.714 IPYU
Member since 2007
8.07 IPW


445 images
49.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.9508 IPW


2526 images
280.666 IPYU
Member since 2005
5.397 IPW


2271 images
283.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
5.45 IPW


840 images
93.333 IPYU
Member since 2005
1.79 IPW


1907 images
272.428 IPYU
Member since 2007
5.239 IPW


1415 images
176.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
3.401 IPW


5162 images
573.555 IPYU
Member since 2005
11.02 IPW

4615 images
576.875 IPYU
Member since 2006
11.09 IPW

718 images
89.75 IPYU
Member since 2006
1.72 IPW


391 images
43.444 IPYU
Member since 2005
.835 IPW

So you have contributors from back in 2005 that have been and are hardly uploading anything, yet there are other newer contributors one being from 2009 with over 18,000 images compared to the older contributors so what is wrong with that picture?

Everyone seems to like talking numbers so there they are and they speak volumes for what is happening to the old contributors, not forgetting to mention what was in high demand is no more because designers are looking for new stuff like filtered images that old timers consider stupid old out of focus faded Polaroids, so they want nothing to do with the trend and the BUS has run over them.

Quote from: ultimagaina on March 29, 2015, 08:28

Ok, then.

I didn't really want to debate the definition of success. It's a relative term.
Nevertheless PB said that his friend is "worried" about the drop in sales, in the context of this topic.
This topic talks about alleged actions against older contributors (like PB's friend), taken by the agencies. Moreover, these actions are claimed to be the reason for not selling new content like in the old days.

Either PB shouldn't be using an off-topic example, or his example is on-topic.

Only PB can clarify, if he or his friend belive that the drop in some of older contributors' sales is caused by specific actions taken by the agencies against them.

So you went back and picked a bunch of older contributors and you are erroneously representing them as representative of all older contributors who are seeing drops on shutterstock.

How do you explain drops for older contributors who have superb quality and upload regularly and in good volume.

The denial in this industry is rich and the sites love to see posts like these because it keeps new contributors in the harness.

Keep thinking it can never happen to you, work harder and ramp up the quality of your work significantly! You are being deluged by ports from IS and their work is at least on par with most images at shutterstock and in some cases much better. To top it off new ports are being given priority in the search.

Quote

look beyond your own foot in the new dailies and you will stop being afraid

I'm doing exactly that, and I don't see any reasons to be worried.

The boost for new photos is fact and anyone can check it when analyzing the popularity tabs. It makes business sense to refresh the top of the collection with the best content, regardless of the contributor's seniority.

The boost for new contributors is pure speculation you have no proof for. Conspiracy theory. It doesn't make any business sense.

The new contributors bump is fact, if the search were not broken I could provide links where shutterstock states that they do give bumps to new ports for a unspecified period of time.  In 2004 or 2005 Jon mentioned that it was a in the order of months (not specified).

I think that is fair for new contributors who do not have large ports and are starting out.  It gives them the chance to have their images noticed.

However now we have contributors from IS with very large ports and large amounts of experience joining shutterstock. These are not new images, they are images that have been for sale on other sites for many years, in some cases since IS was founded in 2000. In other words 15 years.

In this case an extended bump in sales is not fair and it would not be equitable to give these contributors the same months long bump inexperienced newbies with tiny ports receive.

Quote from: spike on March 12, 2015, 07:38

Quote from: Rinderart on March 09, 2015, 20:14

We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.



NOTHING.

They're not expecting anything. It's just happening. The supply is getting bigger and bigger, why would they change anything?

Exactly. Contributors continue to, at best, get no improvement in contractual benefits while mostly seeing benefits taken away and royalties drop. But hoards of new contributors are joining and existing contributors are still submitting record numbers of images. To SS, there is no problem and no reason to change anything with contributors.

As long as so many people are happy working an immense number of hours to create and submit thousands of images to make $10 a month nothing will change. I wonder what would happen if all of the unprofitable contributors suddenly stopped submitting. Just curious if it's the ton of contributors or the image factories that are responsible for the flood of images.

Recently Shutterstock came out with its Infographic: Shutterstock's 2015 Contributor Earnings Report http://tinyurl.com/lxb9hxs where it listed the ranking of sales in each region.  I think they left the number 1, 2, and 4 spots out for good reason.

They fully know who initiated a strong response opposing DPC at fotolia.  All it would take is the Russian community pulling out for a short time and it would strongly affect their business.

Quote from: Rinderart on March 06, 2015, 20:48

Quote from: Snow on March 05, 2015, 10:57

I took GL as an example because they have been with us for quite some time now but of course it goes for every contributor friendly agency out there.

Quote

A few years ago I wrote a long post about rallying behind a single good company, someone who pays 50% or more, has a good site, good "curb appeal" for customers, a simple buying system, and preferably experience in the business. I thought that company was Stockfresh at the time, but they've since proven that they're not really interested in taking on the task of marketing the site and expanding their reach. I guess they're content with where they are right now

That seems to be the issue with some of the more contributor friendly agencies, not willing to go all the way.
Stocksy seems to be only one that has succeeded in this. I am not with them and maybe never will be but I'm glad agencies like that can still exist in this market.

I very Much Agree. I mean really...If a company Can't make a living On 50% of something they don't even produce themselves? Thats pretty Bad business. Sorry.

It more than making a living. They want luxury, free pizza, free massages, free gym, free insurance, and more free benefits. Some one needs to remind them it is not free; we are paying for it. If they cut all the corporate freebies  and luxuries;they could afford to support their contributors!

I think that they could well afford to provide us with a fair share of revenue, if they cut back on the Non-Cash Equity-Based Compensation they have been granting themselves in the form of SSTK stock options at a cost of $0 to themselves. http://tinyurl.com/p9uozmm

Non-Cash Equity-Based Compensation amounted to approx $6,943,352,598.00 in 2014.

We need to address the fact that they have clearly chosen to stiff their contributors while expecting us to fully bankroll, produce, upload and keyword their product. Without our investments and hard work they have nothing to sell.

Well if you like it so much, here you go: http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings

And don't forget to write a review once you get in.

Despite the frivolous vanity spending at shutterstock headquarters, moral seems to be in the dumpster.

http://tinyurl.com/m3qx85m

Lousy engineering environment

Former Employee - Software Engineer in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (more than 3 years)

Cons

Engineers/programmers: DO NOT work at Shutterstock to exercise your skills with modern web or backend development.

DO NOT work at Shutterstock to learn modern web or backend development skills.

You won't accomplish either. If you have a favorite framework at any level of the application stack, odds are good that its use is explicitly forbidden.

Doesn't Recommend
No opinion of CEO

�Staff do not care for you. �
Current Employee - Anonymous Employee

I have been working at Shutterstock
Pros

Good experiences drowning in dissatisfaction with the staff.
Cons

Silly customer - hah hah !!!
Advice to Management - Customer care and respect.

Negative Outlook

�opacity, secrecy and arrogance �

Very poor management- Culture of secrecy, opacity and total lack of communication. Old Good Top down methodology.

Request, emails, questions remain unanswered.

Doubtful promotion system, where friends and acquaintances rise very quick while others struggle.
H.R take employees for a commodity to be used and abused, and lied to.
Advice to Management

Success when it's too quick leads can lead to complete arrogance. This is exactly what happened to the executives and founder of this company.

Wake up and respect other people around including clients, users and employees..

Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

Culture Is Changing Drastically
Anonymous Employee in New York, NY

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (more than 3 years)

Pros
Good compensation
Generous PTO time
Good work/life balance

Cons

Everyone is not treated equal. The culture is not what it used to be. Management (tech & product) lack in leadership, guidance, and people skills. It seems like people are viewed as "tools", and not human beings. There isn't much team building, instead, they create an atmosphere of competition among each other, which affects morale. Management does not provide much support with personal growth, which leads to uncertainty of your future. There is no transparency, and conversations are not straight forward.
Advice to Management

"Learn how to manage in ways that motivate, not demotivate."

Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
No opinion of CEO

Because any good technology company knows that the best time to upgrade a system is the middle of the day in the middle of the week. I'm calling BS on BS. Somebody crashed their servers. Maybe the developers that have been screwing up at SS finally wrote some code bad enough to bring down the house.

The bailing twine and duct tape is giving way.

Well said Snow, I agree across the board.

The above insider trading did not include Insight Venture Partners V (Employee Co-Investors) L P who also acquired their stock at $0 and Disposed of 9,841,337 shares in 2014. Average price per share disposed was not listed. http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1331544.htm

"Net income for the full year 2014 was $22.1 million as compared to $26.5 million in 2013. 

Net income available to common stockholders for the full year 2014 was $22.0 million or $0.61 per share on a fully diluted basis as compared to $26.4 million or $0.77 per share on a fully diluted basis in 2013.  The decrease in net income was caused primarily by an increase in non-cash equity-based compensation expense."

For those who do not know what "non-cash equity-based compensation expense" is

http://online.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052748704509304578515082253371720

There you go Pete, your true motives revealed. I refuse to play your games and yet you still attempt to portray me in a negative light and more importantly attribute comments to me that I never made.

You are the only one playing mind games and hurling personal attacks here. No one told you to keep your comments to yourself, they asked you to "speak for yourself".

Typical for you, complain and shout conspiracy, say that SS lies, call me an agency parrot, and when someone asks for specifics or a straight answer, you back up and shoot another personal attack at me? Nice evasion of the questions, because you don't have any answers, just your negativity and crying.

At least I voiced a personal opinion, which I was told to "keep to yourself". Thanks a bunch. 

Quote from: gbalex on February 11, 2015, 10:20

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 11, 2015, 09:00

Question for you and Snow. Here's your opportunity to shine.

1) What is the cause of the problems both of you say are causing lower sales and income.

2) What is your solution.

Quote from: gbalex on February 10, 2015, 23:14

I would call it a personal attack when you call a grown man a princess!  You never miss an opportunity to sneak in those sideways jabs do you.

Give it a rest Pete, I have grown weary of your games and insults.

Maybe Snow would like to entertain you and your passive aggressive games pete. I have come to realize over time that the "questions with no simple answers" that you frequently put forth are largely conscious one-upmanship banter. I am not interested in wandering down one of your strategic rabbit holes, so that you can lead the subject wildly off track and attack my viewpoints.

I simply agreed with Snow viewpoint using a +1, that many of us who have been contributing for years have equal or superior equipment to those who are new and that if you have old equipment you should speak for yourself. I will leave it at that.