What I don't understand is that I see people in this thread who a) continue trying to upload to Shutterstock, thereby facilitating their new policy and making it harder for other contribubors to make a stance, and b) without even a basic understanding of the difference between MB and MP.

No wonder SS thinks they can get away with it.

I haven't uploaded vectors in ages, but I wanted to upload a new illustration today. Only to see that they went ahead with their idiotic idea, making it impossible for me to upload my work. Alright, at least Adobe Stock accepts my work without hassle. Bye Shutterstock.

Here it shows the amount as seen in the upper right hand corner and below the line from the payout history. I don't know for certain if the 1 ct disappears everytime I make a payout or it's gets added back to my total amount when I make a new sale.



Edit:

What's more, when I check my daily earnings between payouts (and I tested several months), it shows a difference of up to 3 cents between what I add up manually and the amount shown under Daily Earnings...It must be rounded royalties, but it's always in favor of AdobeStock, never in favor of the contributor. Does AdobeStock siphon off every <1ct or does it go back into our account?

Yes, I have been wondering about that too. It's happening for at least a year now. It's just 1 cent, but kinda weird nonetheless.

You're actually replying to what appears to be a generic email sent to thousands of contributors? Do you really believe they care about you personally, your arguments or your rejection rate? What are you expecting, a follow up email with an apology to soothe your hurt feelings?

You may take a request for new content personal, but the reality is you're just one of thousands of contributors. Why even bother replying?

What's the point of this thread anyway? To show off your "victorious" reply over their "inappropriate" e-mail? It wasn't even inappriopriate.

What does this have to do with the 1-year free offer?

Apparently you can still become a judge even if you have a total lack of knowledge about copyright laws. Unbelievable.

Any "exciting" news in which they try really hard to convince you, should be taken with a bucket of salt.

Agencies also always like to add things like 'reach a new audience' and 'whole new revenue stream' while previous experience has shown that it almost always eats away the current revenue stream.

I raised my prices to make up for the commission cut and I did have above average sales this month. So no plummeting for me, so far.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2019, 11:44

Quote from: pkphotos on April 01, 2019, 01:27

What has happened to them? They have gone from quite reliable to very pathetic. I've sent them emails about how useless they've become and they always reply with the same stock standard BS.

They now have ample clips in their wholly owned collection to fill most of their needs. That was the plan all along, to ultimately phase out the paid collection so they get more subscribers that do not have to pay more doe for clips once they lay out the cash for the subscriber model. I think many here pointed that out early on and questioned VBs long term intent.  Those hypothesis came true and sure enough VB cut commissions and could now care less about the contributors who helped make them successful.

I just looked back at what I said about them in 2015 "I've stayed away from VB.  If they become successful they force other sites to lower prices and then what happens if they decide to take 50% royalty or if they stop licensing videos and only promote their free offerings.  I'm going to say away and most likely this year go exclusively with Pond5"
I didn't go exclusive with P5 since then but I did put more work on there than anywhere else.  It should have been obvious to everyone what VB's plan was all along.

Still I don't regret those 3 good years of high commission (100%) sales before things went upside down.

Quote from: Noedelhap on April 09, 2019, 04:50

Obviously a non-academic survey intended to take precious information and use it for personal gain. It even has spelling errors (Q3: "How long have you ben a video stock creator?"). None of these questions will give any useful statistics for academical analysis.

Asking for my username is beyond ridiculous. Why would I divulge info to you about my best-selling stock items?

You are way off the mark. The survey is for primary research. If I wanted to copy peoples best selling stock items surely it makes sense that I would view the most sold items which are widely available on most sites as previously mentioned by someone else. The only personal gain I expect is to pass my degree with a first class honours for which I am currently in a good position to do so. Well done for spotting the typo but this has no bearing on the legitimacy of my request.

I have asked for usernames so people who complete the survey can be confirmed as genuine and it is less invasive than asking for a real name or email address. I have no issue with you not wanting to complete the survey but please don't try and sabotage it. I'm more than willing to take on any suggestions you have to improve the survey and resolve your personal issues with it.

Surveys are normally supposed to be anonymous, as certain answers may be private. When you ask for names and other personal information, you need to comply to privacy laws as well, how you store the information and for how long. By asking our (user)names you could easily build a complete picture of each and every participant.

You're talking about me sabotaging your survey. I'm just warning people and at the same time lecturing you that this is a very questionable way to gather statistical information, ESPECIALLY if it's used for (academical) research.

Obviously a non-academic survey intended to take precious information and use it for personal gain. It even has spelling errors (Q3: "How long have you ben a video stock creator?"). None of these questions will give any useful statistics for academical analysis.

Asking for my username is beyond ridiculous. Why would I divulge info to you about my best-selling stock items?

Instead of adressing our issues, they just rub extra salt in our wounds and have the guts to present it as a great opportunity for us. They clearly don't want to listen to us.