|
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 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 90
451
« 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.
452
« on: June 10, 2020, 17:24 »
Yes, sales are slow on Adobe the last 10 days...quite unusual. What is going on?
453
« on: June 08, 2020, 16:49 »
Look! These sh#t-heads removed all comments and dislikes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=863&v=18XDzw-xlCI&feature=emb_logo
Ok, will try discussions section.
You do understand there's a difference between the Digital Media Licensing Association and Shutterstock right...?
The association is not related to Shutterstock at all, so spamming their videos with comments about SS or Pavlovsky makes no sense. They have every right to delete comments from their videos that are not at all related to their association.
But yeah, just keep blindly harassing every company that even remotely mentions Shutterstock in the hope someone sees your comments. Great way to make contributors look like a bunch of whiny, uneducated kids. Geez.
DMLA has censored the views of the very people that enable the association to be there in the first place. Look at the membership of the association. This essentially means other members of the association are denied to see what the contributors to the industry think about the slash and burn SS has done and how it affects our livelihood, and essentially condones the slash and burn to the industry as a whole.
Frankly this censorship is more sickening that what SS has done.
No, they delete irrelevant comment spam, which is their right as it's their channel. What does SS's pay cuts have to do with a conference talk from 2019? Go comment-bomb Shutterstock forums, dislike everything on Shutterstocks's Youtube channel, spam their Twitter feed for all I care. Just don't do it at places that have no affiliation with Shutterstock. This is not censorship, it's keeping their own comment section clean from irrelevant comments. It doesn't automatically mean they condone Shutterstock's actions, that's what YOU are thinking.
454
« on: June 08, 2020, 16:43 »
Look! These sh#t-heads removed all comments and dislikes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=863&v=18XDzw-xlCI&feature=emb_logo
Ok, will try discussions section.
You do understand there's a difference between the Digital Media Licensing Association and Shutterstock right...?
The association is not related to Shutterstock at all, so spamming their videos with comments about SS or Pavlovsky makes no sense. They have every right to delete comments from their videos that are not at all related to their association.
But yeah, just keep blindly harassing every company that even remotely mentions Shutterstock in the hope someone sees your comments. Great way to make contributors look like a bunch of whiny, uneducated kids. Geez.
We all understand that these are different companies. Information could be delivered only by these means because they don't listen to opinions from official sources.
Btw, very weak position.
Do you defending company, which don't count their contributors for people?
Maybe salary of this ceo reseted every year too? I don't think so.
So people have rights to express their opinions and you trying to shut them up.
I'm not defending Shutterstock, I'm pointing out that attacking this organisation, which has no involvement with Shutterstock or their pay cuts, is just totally misplaced. The fact that you don't seem to grasp that simple concept says it all. It also has nothing to do with the right to express your opinion. You have a right to express your opinion, just do it at the right place and stop barking up the wrong tree. If you have an issue with your plumber, you're not going to complain at the local supermarket just because the plumber buys groceries there.
455
« on: June 08, 2020, 15:31 »
Look! These sh#t-heads removed all comments and dislikes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=863&v=18XDzw-xlCI&feature=emb_logo
Ok, will try discussions section.
You do understand there's a difference between the Digital Media Licensing Association and Shutterstock right...? The association is not related to Shutterstock at all, so spamming their videos with comments about SS or Pavlovsky makes no sense. They have every right to delete comments from their videos that are not at all related to their association. But yeah, just keep blindly harassing every company that even remotely mentions Shutterstock in the hope someone sees your comments. Great way to make contributors look like a bunch of whiny, uneducated kids. Geez.
456
« on: June 06, 2020, 13:28 »
Write an email to their support desk.
457
« on: June 06, 2020, 05:00 »
June 2020 compared to June 2019, according to your formula: -0.33, or a 33% loss
June 2020 compared to May 2020: -0.497, or an almost 50% loss
June 2020 compared to April 2020: -0.35, or a 35% loss.
And I also counted the downloads of June 1st under the old system, so in reality the loss will be bigger than that in future months.
How do you come up with just a 5% loss is beyond me. One look at the new tier system and royalties shows that most contributors will be making a huge loss if you're level 4 or lower. Let alone when you start over at level 1 every January.
Is this at level 4, compared with an earliest highest tier of 0.38?
Did you run the formula that takes enhanced or with no enhanced under consideration? Because it can count negatively when you compare a lifetime average including enhanced dls and a week with only sub and OD without enhanced dls.
By June 2, I saw a maximum fluctuation to my average up to -29% to my lifetime average (but I was comparing WITH enhanced dls against WITHOUT). Then I did without and the real stat was -12%. I was also worried with that, but then it retracted when above average sub and on demand downloads came. Now I am seeing +3% without counting the enhanced dl's. With the enhanced dl's I am +37% in rpd this month.
Yes level 4, and previously 38c tier (>$10k lifetime earnings). I've not counted enhanced licenses (I don't get those anymore, lol). I don't use lifetime income, as this can skew things, but as you can see I compared the average RPD of certain months. Lifetime average RPD don't come into play then.
458
« on: June 06, 2020, 04:35 »
The amount of criers in here is too high ... so does this single mother calculate the 2/3 by the reduction on the minimum earnings on a single sub image? Or was it another miscalculated mistake?
Also all those that come too emotional, did they even bother calculating their average rpd (RETURN PER DOWNLOAD)? The answer is NO, because most contributors don't care to be objective towards the situation. And by this you make us ALL look bad.
The objective approach is to measure the new average RPD and really find out how much is Shutterstock gaining towards contributors with this move. The percentage tier earnings seemed fair all along. I never understood why Shutterstock should be selling .22 and pay .38 to someone. Even paying 0.10 might put them at a loss here.
In the post we did about average RPD (that nobody bothers posting) we are currently measuring an average reduction of contributor % compared to a past lifetime average. Currently it's at just 20% average (even with some people complaining that they lost 66%). Did they get only 1*$0.1 dl compared to $0.38 and gave it as data?
The only bad thing about that new deal, objectively, is the January reset. For both economic and psychological reasons. Contributors value their gained retention and it shouldn't be taken away. That is all that any contributor should be hard to negotiate with and Shutterstock should be pushed to change their policy. The rest, might be ok at the end if measured correctly. Personally my RPD in June for the first week looks almost as before (-2% average without enhanced dl's, with enhanced I am counting a +37% in RPD right now for June) and I am level 5. So if I was level 6 I would have +5% on that and level 4 would be -5%. The "point zero" of no loss / no gain in this tier system is Level 5.
So, to recap, just push Shutterstock to remove the January reset, because it's harmful to the contributor's pocket indeed and retention psychology. But the Tier system, ain't THAT much harmful in the pocket, as much as it is in psychology of watching a new minimum amount earned per download (but a proportionate number of downloads are returning higher too).
You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ... because of the ... 4>3.
Learn some math and then come to the business. Compare:
Lifetime Income / Lifetime Downloads = x
June Income / June Downloads = y
Divide y to x and then deduct 1.
y/x-1 = Your generic average +- %
The enhanced downloads seem to complicate this so:
Go to a month that you had minimal or no enhanced downloads at all and measure that months average RPD.
That month's Income / That month's = z
And count June as if no enhanced also.
June with no enhanced income / June with no enhanced dl = v
Redo this equation:
v/z -1 = An "as accurate as it gets" representation of your gains or losses
The actual difference I am getting with this in the first week is that with the new tier system I am losing -1% or -2% in level 5. It's a negligible difference and could be attributed to normal fluctuations. But level 4 is surely at a 5% calculated loss, level 3 surely at a 10% calculated loss if they are coming from the earlier highest 0.38 tier.
And let's get some accurate results:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-is-ss-rpd-turning-out-for-you-in-this-first-month/msg551033/#msg551033
June 2020 compared to June 2019, according to your formula: -0.33, or a 33% loss June 2020 compared to May 2020: -0.497, or an almost 50% loss June 2020 compared to April 2020: -0.35, or a 35% loss. And I also counted the downloads of June 1st under the old system, so in reality the loss will be bigger than that in future months. How do you come up with just a 5% loss is beyond me. One look at the new tier system and royalties shows that most contributors will be making a huge loss if you're level 4 or lower. Let alone when you start over at level 1 every January.
459
« on: June 05, 2020, 17:49 »
I really don't understand this attitude.
I'm a fellow SS contributor who's also affected by this cut of royalty, but i still fail to see how SS is responsible for the current economic hardships of that alleged single mother or anyone else here. SS is a business not a charity. We are not employees, we are just contracted freelancers, and SS as an organization has zero responsibility towards us. They never made any promises and you are free to terminate your contract any time. The only reason you don't is because the rest of the agencies are just as crap or worse. A few agencies who are committed to fair trade, like pond5 or alamy, don't sell sh*, so it doesn't matter that they give you 40 to 60% of nothing. SS remained the only big one that actually sells and now it's gone too. I don't count istock/getty. The business landscape keeps shifting.
Let's face it: creating stock is a skill of very little added value, at least according to the market. No one cares how long it took you to learn photography and how much you spent on gear. Photography is extremely hard to sell even outside stock, otherwise we wouldn't bother selling for 20 cents a pop. As for me, i just stopped uploading and don't care any more.
It's not SS management's mistake that the single mother failed to obtain more marketable skills. We are all free to move on. Why would you rely on a single source of income, especially if it's known to be very unreliable?
I don't like to brush you off with a 'oh you must be Stan Pavlovsky' comment, because there is some truth to your comment. If you look at it completely objectively, I'd even say you're right. But the problem isn't that we're wondering why Shutterstock does this to their contributors. We all know any agency or commercial company is only in it for the profit, not for charity or goodwill. However, that shouldn't hold us back from calling out hypocrisy, greed or lack of ethics in business, when CEO's/managers/board decide to grab a bigger piece of the pie and insult us by pretending it's a good thing. They may have zero responsibility to us, it doesn't excuse them from being completely careless a-holes. We're also angry about the short 6-day notice, about the financial issues this may create for us and the kick in the teeth during an already tough time. Maybe we should've seen it coming, but the anger and backlash is justified. As to not caring and just stopping uploading: some people don't have that luxury. Because of the corona pandemic, some people have been fired from their day job or lost freelance gigs. Surely the financial situation of this single mother (or anyone) isn't Shutterstock's responsibility (besides, being a single mom doesn't make her situation more pitiful than some random photographer without kids), but it does illustrate capitalism at its worst. We may not be able to stop this greed or change the world (or Shutterstock), but we can still let our voices be heard. We'll have to learn to live with this new reality, but I think speaking out loud is still better than staying silent.
460
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:00 »
I wonder how reading this makes management, or even their social media handlers, feel? Do they even realise there are real people on the other end of this?
It's hard for management to determine whether we are real people if they themselves are basically heartless robots devoid of emotion or guilt.
461
« on: June 03, 2020, 13:48 »
Stan Pavlovsky is pure evil.
But it's not just him. This plan had to be in the making for months, as the contributor portal had to be recoded and the royalty payment system had to be updated.
Jon Oringer must've known this was in the making. just like all other high-ranked officials there. They're pure and utter scum.
462
« on: June 03, 2020, 11:00 »
In the light of Shutterstock's cash grab, YayImages now sounds like an interesting deal. I might actually look into uploading now!
463
« on: June 03, 2020, 10:33 »
I did.
just an FYI, lots of views but watch time is too low for youtube monetization
Youtube monetization is not the goal of course  I did it too, but I noticed Youtube is not the right place to promote my work. I got some views on the more popular subjects but I also received a lot of dislikes from people thinking 'royalty-free' means 'free' and claimed how I was misleading them because they had to pay to use my videos. Actual buyers won't shop around via Youtube anyway, so it was a lot of wasted time for me.
464
« on: June 03, 2020, 02:56 »
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play divide and rule.
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/
I can't find anything about it on the FB page, or any first-hand stories from contributors who have been approached by SS. Is there a source somewhere?
465
« on: June 02, 2020, 10:47 »
No, that's victim blaming. I don't think anyone could have stopped this.
Even if the majority of contributors would stick together and value their work accordingly, sooner or later some soulless agency management will come up with some crazy plan to increase profits, as demanded by insatiable shareholders. A status quo in the industry would theoretically possible, unfortunately greed always rears its ugly head and some company will set things in (downturn) motion, making the rest of the industry follow.
466
« on: June 02, 2020, 08:38 »
I have read all the posts and know the changes. But it says on my dashboard that i am still level 5 and therefore haven't been reset back down to zero.
Goes to show the levels don't mean a thing. Whether we all get reset on January 1st or sit at level 4/5 in June, sales can always be 10c, with the occasional higher commission sale... That's what makes this so infuriating. It's a lose-lose situation for every contributor, small fish and big fish alike.
467
« on: June 02, 2020, 03:41 »
. About the January resets, it is my main objection also. The new system would seem more fair in a rolling 12 month.
That was my main objection as well, but looking at how some contributors at level 5 and 6 still get bottom 10c sales, I think levels matter less than we would like. It won't make much of a difference at which level we start, we're still in the same cesspool.
468
« on: June 02, 2020, 03:37 »
Plan D huh? Well, I've heard about this new thing called Bitcoin...
469
« on: June 01, 2020, 18:09 »
I'm in a way glad I got some 'old-fashioned' $2.85 and $0.38 sales today, no $0.10 sales yet.
470
« on: June 01, 2020, 11:11 »
I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me 
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
I skimmed the forum a bit. Seems like most of them are just confused and are waiting for the new numbers to drop. The problem is, many contributors simply can't afford to switch off their accounts. They complain, yes, but I wouldn't expect much action from them.
Thanks. Understandable, but I still hope that there will be some form of protest, one way or another. If they collectively stop uploading that would mean a lot already.
471
« on: June 01, 2020, 09:16 »
I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
472
« on: June 01, 2020, 06:25 »
To be honest I would not like to be in their shoes.
Let's just say there are certain individuals out there that are capable of crippling a whole organisation should they wish to do so.
Of course if SS goes down we all go down but then buyers will definitely have to move don't they.
I think SS has forgotten the internet is a 2-way street so good luck with all those pissed off Russians!
Speaking of which, is there anyone here who has access to a Russian microstock forum and knows how to make contact with the Russian contributor base? If we can overcome the language barrier we might be able to unite our actions.
473
« on: May 31, 2020, 16:05 »
I hate to be pessimistic and wish you all the best, but after so many attempts throughout the years I don't think we'll ever be able to unionize (or create our own contributor-owned agency for that matter).
How many times before has this idea been suggested? "Someone" should create a site, "someone" should be the leader, "someone" should do this or that... And in the end, nothing happens because nobody has the necessary skills, the willpower, the money or the time to see it through. Let alone the power to convince people to join. Face it, we're almost all independent artists, be it photographers, videographers, illustrators or animators. We all enjoy the creative and entrepreneurial freedom (well, don't you?) and nobody likes to be told what to think, how to vote, who to follow. We may think alike on big issues like pay cuts or copyright infringement, but we don't run a business together. Each and every artist needs to make an independent business decision, because we all have our own personal priorities and reasons.
...And that's why I think a union will never be a reality.
474
« on: May 31, 2020, 12:05 »
This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.
Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.
Uh, no, I wasn't doing any such thing. Sorry.
So you are suggesting Istock just cancelled your contract for absolutely no reason? Why would any agency do that to one of their top producers without reason?
Incompetency? After all of iStock's bad decisions back then, it didn't surprise me that iStock would continue to make bad business decisions.
475
« on: May 31, 2020, 12:01 »
I wrote a blog post about this royalty cut so there is a collection of thoughts all together - things get very spread apart in long topics like this.
https://www.digitalbristles.com/shutterstock-bombshell-royalty-cut-june-1st/
The only thing left to decide is what time on Sunday to turn off my portfolio on Shutterstock 
Nice blog post and an interesting history lesson!
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 90
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
