Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 26, 2016, 18:38
So I have one data point that someone buys the 25-pack ELs - I just received my first at the new "improved" rate and the royalty was $20.39. Nice that they rounded up from 20.388, but that's all the good I can find in this cash grab.

So the SS coffers just swelled by an extra $7.61 on that sale.

Having been through a whole series of cash grabs from a whole series of greedy agencies, I feel entirely justified in complaining about this latest conversion of contributor cash to agency nice-big-yacht fund. Those of you newer to this racket feel free to celebrate SS's "improvement" in our circumstances

A EL poll over the course of a few months would give us a ball park idea of the spread of downloads each package is capturing on the buyer side.

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 26, 2016, 14:00

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 26, 2016, 12:13

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 26, 2016, 11:11
Their interest is to keep the customers happy by presenting them the best photos available.
If they start playing games, as you suggest, customers will notice and leave, going to agencies with better search algorithms, able to offer a better product.
Their foremost incentive is to keep their customers loyal and happy.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Actually I thnk you are right up to a point though many customers don't  want the best they want something fit for purpose so if two pictures meet that need then it may be that the supplier would want to promote the most profitable to them whether they are sophisticated enough to do this I'm not sure.

The search algorithm is one of the most important differentiators in this competition. And its primary goal is to make the best photos float above an ocean of garbage. Fit for purpose is mandatory, of course, but there is always a hierarchy of photos, once fit for purpose is satisfied. Customers would always look for the best photos fitting their purpose.

I believe a company like SS is smart enough to realise that if they stop offering customers their best, they set themselves on a slippery slope. It is easy to imagine a competitor, let's say FT, going after SS customers and running comparative search tests. FT could easily convince SS customers to switch, if they can prove that SS is tricking them, for the sake of an easy profit, with underpar photos made by first tier contributors (and I'm not saying that beginners make underpar photos)

Personally, long after I reached the top tier, I have yet to see a decline. On the contrary, I see growth year over year. But again, I'm also aware that "una hirundo non facit ver"

If I would be SS, I would offer an easy way to make the believers in this "theory" happy: if you believe that your sales are affected by a promotion, you should be allowed refuse the promotion! Make the promotion optional. Maybe you can even ask SS, right now, to demote you to the first tier!  But, I'm rather certain that you will see a massive drop in your revenue, and no change in your sales numbers.

I think older files are relegated to the lower rungs, if you have a newer port you will not be impacted much after reaching the top tier. I have watched many claim it is not impacting them only to see them come back and claim 30% drops when their files hit the threshold age. And SS can and does dynamically change that age. I see old files come to life for weeks at a time. They just do not stay there long no matter how good those files are or how much the customers like them.

Shutterstock is happy to sell good enough files at a lower price for increased profits in bursts. The one thing you can not do is keep your port from aging.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 23, 2016, 20:51

Quote from: gbalex on January 23, 2016, 05:11

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 23, 2016, 01:25
"Jon Oringer
January 11 at 10:27am · New York, NY ·

Financial incentives only work well for mechanical non-cognitive tasks....?"

Yeah, well, it's hardly news: we're Artistes: "money isn't what makes us happy".

C'mon SS, you want to diss contributors? At least think up your own shtick, don't plagiarise.
(As some people apparently haven't realised, I'll labour the point that the above was the infamous quote from KKT, justifying Getty's hammering of iS contributors.)

Exactly

It does indicate the mindset we are dealing with, they feel free and entitled to take full advantage

Quote from: Fairplay on January 23, 2016, 10:53
I'm afraid the next SS step will be to push low tier contributors up in the search!

They have already done this with other sales and the tiered EL's will further increase profit.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 23, 2016, 06:07
That's a very interesting presentation. I was sort of joking about funding expansion by swiping royalties, but how does the video tie in with that? I'm missing the connection

I could see that you were being flipant. The video was shared in the same vein of grey, grains of truth in each.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 23, 2016, 01:25
Now there's a hypothesis as to why SS needs the extra money - they've agreed to take on the 36th floor of the Empire State Building (25,000 sq feet) in 2016!

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/160113/sstk8-k.html

Jon posted this and a link to a youtube vid not long ago on FB

"Jon Oringer
January 11 at 10:27am · New York, NY ·

Financial incentives only work well for mechanical non-cognitive tasks....?"

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Ran into an article written by Scott Maxwell from Insight Venture Partners, thought you might find his perspective interesting.

http://www.insightpartners.com/companies/#!shutterstock

The End Of The Startup Gold Rush, Absurd Burn Rates And Tourist VCs
Posted yesterday by Scott Maxwell

Snip

In 15 years as a venture capitalist, I've seen just about every market condition you can imagine. I started at Insight Venture Partners in 2000 at a time when the stock market was experiencing historic highs and tech companies were receiving massive private and public valuations. Capital markets were flush, startup burn rates were rampant, and the gold rush was on. Investors came out of every corner trying to get a piece of the pie.

We all know how that ended.

Fast forward to 2006, when I founded OpenView Venture Partners. Markets had rebounded from the 2001 disaster, and investment capital was beginning to flow back into VCs and tech startups. With a reasonably good idea and a solid team, most tech startups could secure growth capital. The environment wasn't quite as crazy as 2000, but it was close.

Then, 2008 happened — and we all know how that ended.

Which brings us to today...

Snip

So, Where Are We Now?

In the financial world, this ebb and flow phenomenon is often referred to as risk-on, risk-off investing, and it tends to create herd-like behavior.

In my mind, there's little doubt that the VC and tech worlds are beginning to shift from greed to fear (or, risk-on to risk-off). Private valuations are beginning to normalize. Fewer tech startups are going public. And "tourist" VCs — hedge funds, public asset managers, and corporate venture capital groups that dabble in tech VC when market conditions are favorable — are starting to return home.

Additionally, there are several macroeconomic factors that are creating market uncertainty and, thus, less enthusiasm around riskier investments. Specifically:

    China's growth has slowed, which is causing ripple effects across global capital markets and creating worries about volatility
    Interest rates remain low and there's fear that won't last
    Commodities are declining in price and the stock market isn't rocketing upward

Collectively, these factors are creating risk-off preference in the market, which is lowering investors' appetite for investments with unclear opportunities for a return. In the short-term, this will accelerate the demise of startups with poor economic models that previously relied on investor euphoria and the tech industry's momentum to achieve sky-high valuations. And it will probably make it more difficult for some startups to acquire the runway necessary to test and prove the value of their ideas.

http://tinyurl.com/oargeqg

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 23, 2015, 05:19

Quote from: Mantis on November 22, 2015, 19:12

Quote from: stockastic on November 22, 2015, 17:49
I don't think this is hard to understand.  A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital.  After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way.  It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control. 

The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.

It makes sense. If VC's are involved, they want a BIG ROI. That explains Kelly in my mind. He is that resource who will find ways to steal from us to line the pockets of 500PX and their VC's.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Venture Capitalists + Kelly = high probability he is there to find ways to pad VC pockets at our expense. I just cannot think of any other way to spin it. That't what Kelly was tasked with doing at IS and what he was good at.

This explains it all as far as I am concerned.  Kelly was tasked with increasing profits by 50% for the VCs who bought Getty and no doubt he will be doing the same for the VCs who invested in 500px.  We've already seen this film, people.  We know how it ends.

Yes it only ends well for a few key insiders. I do not have the stomach to see if the VC's in question have a track record of taking companies they invest in public.

Quote from: robhainer on November 17, 2015, 00:47

Quote from: anathaya on November 17, 2015, 00:37

Quote from: robhainer on November 17, 2015, 00:32
I find it disappointing so many people here don't support doing anything about ISIS. They control land and have a standing Army.

Who armed them?

It doesn't really matter. What matters is stopping them.

And for a fact, the U.S. did not arm them. We armed other rebels opposed to the Syrian regime, and ISIS took their weapons. Then they took land, and recruited a greater force with money from stolen oil.

In the end, they are evil. There's no shade of gray here. If you support doing nothing about them, you are complicit in their evil.

I supposed it's easy for some to stand by while they kidnap young Yazidi girls and sell them as sex slaves while launching attacks on Paris that kill dozens with more to come.

You will be signing up then, to fight ISIS on the ground yourself!

Or do you expect young men all over the world to do the dirty work for you?

Quote from: cobalt on November 15, 2015, 10:27
However, sects that brainwash people are nothing new. What is new is how professionally this is organized and how far this can reach via the internet and global travel.

I believe in following the money trail. All that oil money from the oil fields in irak, money from drugs in Afghanistan and putting extreme pressure, or boycotts on Saudi Arabia until they stamp out the radicals in their country. I absolutely don´t understand why such an extreme dictatorship is being considered an "ally".

But most of all, we cannot just go back to living and worrying only about our own countries, globalisation and the internet networks mean we are truly one single planet, borders and countries are becoming irrelevant.

We need to embrace the global reality, we can´t turn the time back.

Conflicts, climate change etc...are no longer local, they affect us everywhere.

Eta: I read a lot of comments on the New YorkTimes and social networks demanding a quick military solution. "Bomb them back into the stone age / use nuclear bombs"

However this will kill thousands of civilians and among the survivors you create thousands of new terrorists. While the masterminds will just slip away like water and move on to the next country. There is no simple, quick solution.

We also have to engage in nation building and bringing jobs to far away places, just to protect ourselves, even if this is crazy. Bringing education and knowledge to far away places, via the internet,student exchange etc...it is a very slow process.

The world needs good thinkers and very clever diplomacy, not more war machine. People who can envision peace for generations, not short drama for their reelection campaign. Logic instead of emotions.

Tactical military strikes to take out military stromgholds, but not mass bombardement or indiscriminate sanctions that withold medication etc...all those children that died in irak because of extreme sanctions and Madeleine Albright then saying on TV "they died for a good cause".

You made some very good points in this post and others and I agree. The war machine makes it easy to radicalize those who have been ravaged by war.

The terrorist struck two blows with recent attacks, they are actively seeking division by means of stigmatizing & vilifying refugees who could later become new recruits. Hitler and friends would approve.

Quote from: marthamarks on October 31, 2015, 13:35

Quote from: Thomas from France on October 31, 2015, 12:52

Signed.I feel betrayed

Thank you, Thomas! Your signature brought the number up to 496.

Surely we can find four more to get it to 500!

I think you would get more signatures if you start a new thread with a link to the petition as the first entry. I found the link by chance because I did not read every entry in this thread and rarely do because I am busy!

For the last two years shutterstock is down more than any other micro site. This is a regular occurrence.

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on October 24, 2015, 08:20
I remember Thilo Semmelbauer was selling SSTK on regular basis while he was President and COO.

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1290183.htm

Seems like he didn't care much about company's future. And then he left right before the stock fell.

Completely agree none of them did.

I quit keeping track in January of this year, however at that time the key players place in the company by Insight venture capitol & Ownership By Multiple Insight Venture Capitol Entities, 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 which was the low stock price in January, that amounted to $1,144,929,800

It is clear that the last thing on their minds is the welfare of the company or contributors, their biggest concern was/is driving stock prices up, and they are in this for the short term. They know the window to drive stock prices up is limited. That is why you are seeing key players move on to the next lucrative IPO.

Thilo is not the only one placed by Insight Venture Capital to have jumped ship.

Shutterstock (SSTK) Taps Tumblr's Aggarwal as CTO
http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Changes/Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+Taps+Tumblrs+Aggarwal+as+CTO/10984622.html

https://www.pehub.com/2015/09/insight-venture-partners-beefs-up-staff-with-five-new-additions/

Snip

September 29, 2015 – Following the close of Insight Venture Partners' recent growth and buyout funds totaling $4.75 billion, the firm, a leading global private equity and venture capital investor, has announced the addition of five technology industry specialists who will provide expertise to portfolio companies as they scale revenue and operations. Jason Ewell, Josh Gray, Karl Karlsson, Emmet B. Keeffe III, and Thilo Semmelbauer join Nick Sinai as part of Insight Onsite, the firm's team of value add portfolio-focused resources.

... Thilo Semmelbauer has been involved in technology ventures for over 25 years, most recently as President and COO of former Insight portfolio company, Shutterstock Inc., (NYSE: SSTK)

Most Recent Insider Transactions August 2015 - October 2015
Filing Date    Name    Shares    Transaction    Value
10/01/15    Steven Berns      40,000    Award at $0 per share    0
09/09/15    Nicholas Flynn    615    Disposition at $33.48 per share    20,590
08/28/15    Jonathan Oringer    100,000    Acquisition at $34.02 per share    3,402,000
08/27/15    Jonathan Oringer    100,000    Acquisition at $32.56 per share    3,256,000

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on October 23, 2015, 22:36
And the CEO is Jon, right? How come he was a great leader before, but not now?

His hands were tied once he let Insight Venture Capital take the reins.

The below document reports that Insight Venture Partners worked closely with Jon, to recruit a new executive team at Shutterstock, in particular the President, CFO, CTO, VPCD and other mid-level managers.

Insight Venture Partners
Creating a Successful IPO
http://www.insightpartners.com/assets/Uploads/SuccessStory/Shutterstock.pdf

Insight Venture Capitol also owned a significant portion of SSTK stock under various entities. These were large and easily tracked INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS V L P, SHUTTERSTOCK INVESTORS I LLC, as well as Institutional holdings via INSIGHT HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC

SSTK Insider Activity (SEC Form 4)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades

Recent INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT's SSTK stock sales.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/SSTK/insideractions

Shutterstock, Inc. Ownership Summary Including Multiple Insight Venture Capitol Entities
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary#ixzz3IafANBvJ

Quote from: Rinderart on October 23, 2015, 02:08
Jon should buy it back Now. Come back to work and put a soul back into the Place.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Shutterstock-RVW7829603.htm

"Glory days are gone "
Former Employee - Marketing Manager in New York, NY
Doesn't Recommend
Negative Outlook
Disapproves of CEO

I worked at Shutterstock full-time (More than 5 years)

Pros

Nice perks and office, no clear responsibilities, doing whatever you want without somebody looking at results and delivery.

Cons

I was working in Marketing but I had strong interactions with all departments. Executive team left because personality of CEO, hundreds of folks across the board they left in a span of a few months, sadly - most of them superstars and talented ones. Technology team was hit the hardest, so with all mediocre folks remaining there the business is sputtering because of lack of innovation, execution, talent and ideas. Stock fell 60% in only a few months. The bubble bursted and until CEO is changed, nothing good will happen! Very negative workplace, where mediocrity runs everything, a real career killer. Don't waste your time with Shutterstock, any other place is better.Show Less

Advice to Management

Board of Directors should fire the CEO - is running the company to the ground. All talented people, all levels and departments left because of viciousness and lack of vision and strategy."

Shutterstock (SSTK) Taps Tumblr's Aggarwal as CTO
http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Changes/Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+Taps+Tumblrs+Aggarwal+as+CTO/10984622.html

Shutterstock (SSTK) Taps Tumblr's Aggarwal as CTO
http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Changes/Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+Taps+Tumblrs+Aggarwal+as+CTO/10984622.html

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 17, 2015, 18:09

Quote from: marthamarks on October 17, 2015, 18:01

Quote from: modviz on October 17, 2015, 17:16
Shutterstock rep Vincent responded immediately to "Has Shutterstock Been Hacked" yet they've ignored months of contributors questioning Shutterstock's reviewers.

Yep, I noted that too. Tells us something, doesn't it?

They respond about important things like security concerns?

Shutterstock is responsive in that they come here to manage our perceptions, in regard to their lack of security and the recent measures needed to protect our accounts because they were asleep at the wheel.

Quote from: dcdp on October 17, 2015, 07:54
There is actually a bigger problem. The default log in page is not encrypted, it uses http rather than https. Chrome says the identity of the web site cannot be confirmed. The http site should automatically route users to the https site to ensure encryption is used to protect the data entered during log in by the user. This is web security 101.

Additionally when you manually enter the https vs http Chrome says the site uses weak security (SHA-1). Again Web Security 101. This was not the case previously. I suggest whoever is in charge needs to take a look at what is going on very carefully and users be very cautious.

Quote from: dcdp on October 17, 2015, 10:58
I also just noticed that my Paypal email address has been removed from my details on Shutterstock. This getting more concerning.

BS users reporting that their paypal email had been changed and payment had been requested. http://tinyurl.com/oa286l2

"I woke up this morning to emails from BS saying I'd changed my payment email. And apparently initiated paypal payment to the new address. I can't figure out how to change my password there and I'm furious. How can BS (owned by SS) allow payment to be made within moments of changing your email?

Check your accounts folks. If you can figure out how to change your password there, I would suggest doing so.

They also changed the name on my account... and I can't get in to fix the profile. "


And now they "need to verify that our email address is correct". Please at least admit you have been hacked.

"Verify your email

Is this the address you'd like associated with your account?"

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on October 18, 2015, 19:45

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 18, 2015, 04:11
I'm not sure in what way we are calling Yuri a leader.  He definitely was and maybe still is the sales leader in microstock contributors.  Let's don't confuse that with being a leader in the contributor community. 

Yuri always market himself well and look out for his own interests.  Thats fine.  No name calling from me.  But that isn't the same as being a leader for contributors.  I would say there are others who taken a stand speaking for contributors like Sean and JoAnn, and they were punished for it by agencies.  That was bravery and real leadership. When these two speak I listen because I know they are looking at the whole industry, not just their own interests.

punished by the agencies for speaking out...
yes, and others like lisafx (remember her???) also got punished for speaking out
like yuri is doing .
we must remember that this here like anyway else is a forum. a forum if i remember is a place you can speak out without being stabbed by your friends and fiends pretending to be your friend.
but ah yes, the first forum , we had stabbing too and today here in this forum and elsewhere we
have even more great grand children of Brutus 

if you and i are allow to speak out, so should yuri and lisafx etc
so long as it is not directly at you or me or yuri personally. yuri  is speaking out at msg not everyone but certain ppl who knows who they are. i don't think this is not acceptable, since
it is a fact he did come in here and got hammered.
as i said, i don't like yuri for certain obvious reasons, but that does not mean he is not allowed to
open his mouth, like you and me

It is all butterfly's and puppy dog kisses as long as you go along with the group crowdspeak

Sad that they take so little precautions with our security. Strange to see a site being thanked for exposing our accounts to theft.

Quote from: dcdp on October 17, 2015, 10:58
I also just noticed that my Paypal email address has been removed from my details on Shutterstock. This getting more concerning.

Quote from: dcdp on October 17, 2015, 07:54
There is actually a bigger problem. The default log in page is not encrypted, it uses http rather than https. Chrome says the identity of the web site cannot be confirmed. The http site should automatically route users to the https site to ensure encryption is used to protect the data entered during log in by the user. This is web security 101.

Additionally when you manually enter the https vs http Chrome says the site uses weak security (SHA-1). Again Web Security 101. This was not the case previously. I suggest whoever is in charge needs to take a look at what is going on very carefully and users be very cautious.

They were asleep at the wheel when the site was being hacked.

BS users reporting that their paypal email had been changed and payment had been requested. http://tinyurl.com/oa286l2

"I woke up this morning to emails from BS saying I'd changed my payment email. And apparently initiated paypal payment to the new address. I can't figure out how to change my password there and I'm furious. How can BS (owned by SS) allow payment to be made within moments of changing your email?

Check your accounts folks. If you can figure out how to change your password there, I would suggest doing so.

They also changed the name on my account... and I can't get in to fix the profile. "


And now they "need to verify that our email address is correct". Please at least admit you have been hacked.


"Verify your email

Is this the address you'd like associated with your account?

Quote from: cobalt on October 14, 2015, 08:50
Why would he need more contributors? He has 100 employees, doesn't he?

He produces a lot of high quality stock and presumably all rights are with his company.

Looks like a perfect plan to me.

If anyone wants to work for him, they can just apply.

Or are you hoping he becomes a new Agency you can join?

Yuri is competitive and he fully understands that one reason buyers would choose to buy at FT, SS, DT over his site is that they have a much larger selection of content.

He is also proactive and solution oriented, "if" he chose that option I would expect him to collaborate with large contributors with content that would benefit his long term business plan.

Quote from: cobalt on October 14, 2015, 02:10
Well, last year he said he was personally supervising business development at istock to make the site more attractive and increase sales.

If he can improve the site and grow the business, everyone will appreciate it.

But I don't know what it was that he did or if his ideas were implemented.

On his own agency he has full control and can do whatever he wants.

Unless he signed some type of non compete in regard to adding additional contributors when he made his deal with IS.