|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - Noedelhap
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 90
426
« on: June 21, 2020, 13:34 »
I just deactivated my 1400+ images and 400+ animated videos for the time being, at least until June 30th and possibly the whole of July.
427
« on: June 18, 2020, 18:06 »
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.
Exactly, not only would you submit irrelevant info to them, you're also hijacking the form for your own cause, while their article is addressing decreased pay for people of color. Besides, submitting our numbers gives the NY Times more work to filter them out (because they're simply considered irrelevant) and you're possible skewing the results of their research.
There are other ways of getting attention for our microstock problems, this is not one of them.
What have you done to get the word out?
Completely irrelevant question to what I said, but I'll bite: I tweeted and retweeted a lot of #boycottShutterstock tweets and I personally informed my clients (who regularly shop at Shutterstock) of Shutterstock's royalty changes. Hopefully that'll change their minds. Now instead of getting all annoyed and personal on me, why don't you explain (after carefully considering my arguments against it) why YOU still think submitting that form is a good idea?
428
« on: June 18, 2020, 10:51 »
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.
Exactly, not only would you submit irrelevant info to them, you're also hijacking the form for your own cause, while their article is addressing decreased pay for people of color. Besides, submitting our numbers gives the NY Times more work to filter them out (because they're simply considered irrelevant) and you're possible skewing the results of their research. There are other ways of getting attention for our microstock problems, this is not one of them.
429
« on: June 18, 2020, 06:14 »
How do you fill a form like this? We don't have a 'salary', we can only mention our ROI, or the number of images in our portfolio, the number of downloads and our revenue.
You're better off emailing them specifically about this, maybe they'll write a real article about the state of affairs in the microstock industry. Otherwise we'll just be an meaningless footnote at best, in an article talking about employees' wages.
It doesn't matter at all, put your annual income or whatever you want!
You can even put the name of your dog and the email address of you ex mother in law
The important thing is to spread the message "Shutterstock fucks the contributors" to as many people as possible using all possible ways.
If it's no use at all, it's not a big deal, it doesn't take more than 3 minutes to answer the questions... Do you have 3 minutes at your disposal or are you so busy counting your Shutterstock earnings? :p
Name of your dog, haha. Then they'll dismiss it as simple trolling spam, filter out all unrealistic submissions and we won't be taken seriously at all. Quick way to destroy our credibility. I'd suggest trying something more productive, like I said, emailing the NY Times with your personal story and telling them how Shutterstock made your life a living hell during corona pandemic. Then it might appeal to their emotions and they might see a story in it. Edit: grammar
430
« on: June 18, 2020, 03:25 »
How do you fill a form like this? We don't have a 'salary', we can only mention our ROI, or the number of images in our portfolio, the number of downloads and our revenue.
You're better off emailing them specifically about this, maybe they'll write a real article about the state of affairs in the microstock industry. Otherwise we'll just be an meaningless footnote at best, in an article talking about employees' wages.
431
« on: June 17, 2020, 10:27 »
432
« on: June 17, 2020, 10:15 »
Hi,
If you design a shape in SS earning Schedule based on 6 levels and a different % scheme i think you will find the pyramid shape. But Definitely it will not be the traditional "pyramid scheme" scam but rather something that was thought since Pitgoras and applied by SS to earn more
That isn't a "pyramid scheme", traditional or otherwise.
i am sry sean. it is. cleary you dont know how to draw shapes with numbers. :-)
Well I looked up the definition of a pyramid scheme on Wikipedia (as the millennial that I am): "A pyramid scheme is a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme, rather than supplying investments or sale of products" How does this apply to Shutterstock? You tell me. Just because you can draw a pyramid shape from the earnings structure, doesn't mean it's a pyramid scheme where payment is based on enrolling others.
433
« on: June 17, 2020, 10:02 »
I think rcherubin has a point here, having a commission structure that is opaque, has allowed Shutterstock to operate insolently, this in the UK is illegal. The Directors can be taken to Court for this.
The crucial thing is that they're not forcing you to work for them, they're not forcing you to sign an illegal contract, there's no employment, so you don't really have a case...I doubt you'd get very far in court.
434
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:06 »
Dont be ridiculous. And research what a pyramid scheme is.
I don't have to research anything. That's the difference between a millennial and everyone else, I guess. The older generation speaks from experience. The newer one looks everything up on Wikipedia and Reddit, develops the smug satisfaction of thinking they've got a handle on the subject and then tells everyone else to "Look it up/do your own homework/etc."
Well, what you are describing is not a pyramid scheme. And what Shutterstock is doing is not criminal by law (only in the moral sense of the word), so pushing for criminal investigation is senseless and dumb. You're claiming that millennials look everything up on Wikipedia and Reddit, but you don't have to research anything because of your age and experience, which is an appeal to authority, one of the so-called logical fallacies. Being older and more experienced does not automatically make you wiser, let alone a lawyer.
435
« on: June 17, 2020, 05:10 »
My new strategy is not to upload top and new images to iStock, since the income goes down. Does anyone else doing the same?
I made that decision directly after the big pay cuts in 2016. So why stop uploading just now? You should have stopped uploading years ago. and if you became a contributor post-2016, the numbers have been low ever since...
436
« on: June 16, 2020, 17:15 »
Project Giving
---------------
1. Setup a company. This company will sign an irrevocable agreement that the maximum it can earn per year is $1million USD. Extra earned money will be divided back to the contributors as dividend. So, the founder of this company is only meant to make a maximum of USD1million per year.
Just my idea. What do you guys think? Please criticize as much as possible so I can give up thinking about it 
That's crazy. As a company you would NEVER EVER impose a rule like that. It doesn't make any sense. Then it would be a charity, a non-profit organization basically. With the commercial mission of the company in mind (selling microstock licenses), that's a practically unworkable situation. You have countless costs running a company, so a good financial buffer is important to make this company viable and financially healthy. Self-imposing a limit on the amount of revenue totally goes against that principle.
437
« on: June 16, 2020, 17:08 »
But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.
Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?
Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.
Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.
But I know where it starts.
It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:
As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.
We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?
Sorry, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, I don't mean building a contributor-owned stock agency. In fact I think we'd never be able to compete against the market leaders.
What I'm talking about was: why should Shutterstock care that we all got 'united' on a website with a gallery to show off our work? It wouldn't give us any negotiating power. The images would just be sitting there, except they're not for sale, it's just a gallery. What message does that even spread? Nothing much. Clients would never see it, let alone care about our little coalition. We'd be as powerless as we are here, talking amongst ourselves.
For any power play we'd need to collectively pull our images, but we have no idea how many people would join that plan.
Suppose the coalition becomes a starting point for a small movement, even then we'd be lucky if we got 1% of all contributors on board. And that won't be enough.
So I ask you, what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake? Are we going to protest in front of the ShutterStock HQ, #ContributorLivesMatter?
One step at a time. And co-opting Black Lives Matter when people are literally fighting for their lives is so uncool.
I felt the need to respond to this after all, because it seems people are reading this all wrong. I didn't mean to say our issue is of the same historical significance as fighting institutional racism and police brutality. That's not how I meant it; I was merely drawing a comparison to the scale and intensity of the BLM protests, questioning (albeit sarcastically) whether that was something the coalition was aiming to achieve.
Having said that, I said a whole lot more in my post, yet this is the only thing you're picking up from it?
Yes, because "contributors' lives matter" keeps popping up, and it's obnoxious. And the rest of your post was Debby Downer-ish, and I'm never gonna convince naysayers to not say nay.
It's not a slogan I'd ever use if I'd protest in front of SS HQ. But with the #BLM slogan in the back of everybody's heads, it's the first thing that pops into people's minds when thinking about protesting. You can't fault anyone for that, unless they use it to deliberately downplay the current racism issues in society. Only then it becomes obnoxious.
438
« on: June 16, 2020, 13:48 »
But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.
Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?
Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.
Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.
But I know where it starts.
It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:
As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.
We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?
Sorry, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, I don't mean building a contributor-owned stock agency. In fact I think we'd never be able to compete against the market leaders.
What I'm talking about was: why should Shutterstock care that we all got 'united' on a website with a gallery to show off our work? It wouldn't give us any negotiating power. The images would just be sitting there, except they're not for sale, it's just a gallery. What message does that even spread? Nothing much. Clients would never see it, let alone care about our little coalition. We'd be as powerless as we are here, talking amongst ourselves.
For any power play we'd need to collectively pull our images, but we have no idea how many people would join that plan.
Suppose the coalition becomes a starting point for a small movement, even then we'd be lucky if we got 1% of all contributors on board. And that won't be enough.
So I ask you, what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake? Are we going to protest in front of the ShutterStock HQ, #ContributorLivesMatter?
One step at a time. And co-opting Black Lives Matter when people are literally fighting for their lives is so uncool.
I felt the need to respond to this after all, because it seems people are reading this all wrong. I didn't mean to say our issue is of the same historical significance as fighting institutional racism and police brutality. That's not how I meant it; I was merely drawing a comparison to the scale and intensity of the BLM protests, questioning (albeit sarcastically) whether that was something the coalition was aiming to achieve. Having said that, I said a whole lot more in my post, yet this is the only thing you're picking up from it?
439
« on: June 16, 2020, 12:38 »
I request account termination last year, and they responded within 9 days.
Filing a complaint with New York attorney general seems a bit too much, aren't there other ways to contact them?
440
« on: June 16, 2020, 08:04 »
Well, for me Pond5's credibility is already rock bottom since they did some nasty stuff like Hyperstock and the "town hall meeting" with a commission cut for non-esclusives, so the damage is already done. Can this CEOmake things even worse? We'll see.
441
« on: June 15, 2020, 09:29 »
The correct amount (i.e the same as last month) was paid today.
442
« on: June 15, 2020, 04:50 »
My problem is that I currently can't afford to lose a (still) substantial chunk of my microstock revenue overnight. So I won't immediately delete my port, but I'll definitely stop uploading until I know exactly how big my losses are. Maybe I'll sit out the year and then rethink my options.
Shutterstock is (for most of us) one of the top 3 agencies, so shutting off your portfolio has more of a direct impact than, say, deleting your Dreamstime portfolio.
We also have no guarantee that deleting our portfolios will stop other agencies from following suit anyway. Maybe this move by SS is part of an inevitable shift in the market that we can't stop. Microstock was already going down the drain anyway in terms of ROI. In that case we shouldn't focus on stopping SS, but on devising an exit strategy and finding alternative sources of income.
That said, I'm very frustrated by what SS did, and I'd love to see Shutterstock fail hard after this brutal cut. So I support the boycott spiritually.
443
« on: June 12, 2020, 16:06 »
I once created my own personal stock site. I paid $70 for a good template site with database, search functionality, cart and check out, including a backend for editing, customized it, got it working, but in the end no visitors and no sales whatsoever. Granted I didn't really advertise, but I did lots of social media updates and put links to my vector store everywhere I could.
After a few years I pulled the plug because it just wasn't worth the hassle.
444
« on: June 11, 2020, 17:07 »
...what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake?
The unified front is figuring that out. In the meantime, halting uploads and disabling portfolios continues with #BoycottShutterstock to keep some pressure on the Shutterstock execs.
You may not think the boycott will work. The execs can't be sure that it won't. That'll do for a Thursday
Oh, I think a direct boycott of halting uploads/deleting portfolios can certainly work wonders against Shutterstock, if only for a while. I just wasn't sure what the effectivity of a coalition website is. But I'm all ears to hear what kind of cunning plans the coalition can come up with.
445
« on: June 11, 2020, 14:35 »
I'm afraid the enormous influx of contributors from SS is going to overload the reviewing system of Adobe, to the point of them blindly accepting everything, just to clear the backlog.
It's sad to see agencies dumbing down their quality requirements. Or failing to be consistent, at the very least.
446
« on: June 11, 2020, 14:16 »
But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.
Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?
Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.
Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.
But I know where it starts.
It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:
As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.
We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?
Sorry, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, I don't mean building a contributor-owned stock agency. In fact I think we'd never be able to compete against the market leaders. What I'm talking about was: why should Shutterstock care that we all got 'united' on a website with a gallery to show off our work? It wouldn't give us any negotiating power. The images would just be sitting there, except they're not for sale, it's just a gallery. What message does that even spread? Nothing much. Clients would never see it, let alone care about our little coalition. We'd be as powerless as we are here, talking amongst ourselves. For any power play we'd need to collectively pull our images, but we have no idea how many people would join that plan. Suppose the coalition becomes a starting point for a small movement, even then we'd be lucky if we got 1% of all contributors on board. And that won't be enough. So I ask you, what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake? Are we going to protest in front of the ShutterStock HQ, #ContributorLivesMatter?
447
« on: June 11, 2020, 12:09 »
Why 1500px pictures without watermark?
1500 pixels is a reasonable size for Facebook pages and websites, quick to load and not big enough to steal and sell most likely
1500 px is big enough for websites, blogs, small print. But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.
448
« on: June 11, 2020, 10:52 »
Why 1500px pictures without watermark?
449
« on: June 11, 2020, 04:55 »
You guys don't think its the great exodus from SS plus other things? If you don't your are only fooling your self and living in denial. I mean come on guys.
Well, considering the time it takes to upload everything and get it reviewed, let alone be updated in the search and indexed by Google, I don't expect sales to fall off a cliff immediately, no.
450
« on: June 10, 2020, 17:24 »
Yes, sales are slow on Adobe the last 10 days...quite unusual. What is going on?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
