|
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 - YadaYadaYada
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 64
76
« on: December 24, 2020, 17:10 »
maybe they think you are spying on them?
No, theyve been at it for a while and I only recently thought to record them.
Notify the police.
77
« on: November 30, 2020, 17:19 »
"WhAt PerCenTage aRe ThEy PaYiNg!!!  "
I know you want a simple answer but sometimes things are little more complicated.
I have just explained and broken down how they calculate the percentages for sub downloads (after you said sub calculations had nothing to do with percentage tier levels).
Plug in whatever numbers you like and you can see that the answer is far less than they claim in real terms, because they calculate using the assumption that a buyer downloads their full allowance. For anyone outside the lowest tiers, i.e. anyone whos income is really going to be effected by this, this results in getting a much lower REAL percentage than Shutterstock claim (because they would be earning more than 10c in every REAL scenario).
You may be able to come up with scenarios like well if I am tier 1 and the buyer uses 100% of their mega sub package downloads I get more than 15% on those first 100 dls for the year but honestly, why would you work so hard to jam another guys foot up your own a**.
Another example, if I am level 3 and buyer has 750 monthly pack, Shutterstock payment for the sub:
$199/750 images= .26c per image 25%= 6.6c/dl so they raise it to the 10c floor (wOw I aM gEtTiNg 38%!!!!)
If the buyer actually uses 50% of their downloads (again, they dont but lets be generous) what 25% would actually be:
$199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl
Congrats you just got ****** out of third of your income and are cheerleader for the people doing it.
You may want someone to spoon feed you an exact percentage, but without access to Shutterstock's accounts no one can. I doubt thats an accident on their part. If they were being honest/ transparent I wouldnt have to. It would all be on the table and we could take it or leave it. Theres several ways they could do this, even if it meant basing payouts on a previous months percentages used and correcting the following month, but here we are.
You assume nobody downloads their full allowance, $199/375 images= .53c per image 25%= .13c/dl you want them to pay us .36c a download 68% on every sale. iStock does base on previous month and corrects for used on the following month. We get 15% / .02c minimum. $199/750 images= .26c per image we would get .039c per download. You are a cheerleader for that .04c plan that pays the promised % a month later, 60% less.
78
« on: October 31, 2020, 20:52 »
LOL yeah, we all know the difference.
Based on some of the comments here I'm not so sure about the "all" part.
Apophenia, the tendency to incorrectly, infer patterns or connections in unrelated input, can be considered a commonplace effect of brain function. Taken to an extreme, however, it can be a symptom of psychiatric dysfunction. Paranoia
79
« on: October 09, 2020, 13:20 »
I saved the URL for my image - that gives a 404 error today
For the portfolio link I see this amusing suggestion that I should check for spelling errors or typos to see results 
And no reply yet from support at iStock...
Sorry, your search returned zero results for
80
« on: October 07, 2020, 13:57 »
With so much competition, the Agencies decide who sells and who does not. Clients can find you, but Agencies can also work to find their clients that file they are looking for, that they know where it is and that the normal client cannot find.
Freepik grants benefits to its Ambassadors, that is, if the Agency is spoken well on social media, they are supposed to appoint you as Ambassador. The benefit of being an ambassador is that the Agency gives more visibility to the portfolio if you are an Ambassador.
It is not about quantity or quality, the market is so aggressive between agencies and among collaborators themselves, that agency promotes good ideas from collaborators. Enhancing the competition of that particular possible niche.
Agencies sell what Agencies want to sell, regardless of the fact that in the end, a client can find you. But, it is likely, that I will have to spend more time finding you if the Agency has you with a red or yellow traffic light.
If you are looking for a red light bulb, in an office. And in the search, pumpkins appear, it is likely that the Agency understands that this specific pumpkin must have maximum visibility. Before any search, or be similar to 100% of all the images that a client looks for this month. The pumpkin that they are going to offer will appear to each client, this affects the sale of that specific pumpkin, although there may be others of higher quality, commercial, modern, .......
I've been working my ass off keywords and descriptions, trying to make buyers see my pictures and you tell me agencies hide me and play favorites to sell what they want to sell? How does that work? How do I become a favorite so they sell me.
81
« on: September 29, 2020, 08:20 »
Works for me.
82
« on: September 29, 2020, 08:17 »
To be fair, TrustPilot is untrustworthy.
it is not, because they remove fake reviews whenever detected, but you cannot stop them all. its one of the better review sites out there
Just this evening, I wrote a 5* review on TrustPilot (not stock related) then looked through my other reviews. Only my 5* reviews remain: my others, from 4* down to 1*, have disappeared. I never got any notification about them being removed.
Trustpilot is a scam review site. https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/trustpilot.com
83
« on: September 29, 2020, 07:28 »
84
« on: September 20, 2020, 05:02 »
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
@LaurinRinder was a reviewer? Why doesn't he answer what they got paid on Bigstock? After they sold to SS the contract is done, not secret.
Why would he answer? Every time he posts here, people call him names.
Names?
85
« on: August 19, 2020, 16:05 »
Earlier in August, CyberLink announced two new Shutterstock deals for accessing stock images, video & music from within their apps
For the purchased iOS and Android apps, it appears you buy the photos with a small subscription. With the subscription apps, the Shutterstock content is "free" and appears to be just a subset of the library - 30k videos, 150k images and 300 music clips
https://www.facebook.com/cyberlink/videos/shutterstock-photo-library-now-in-photodirector-app-%EF%B8%8F-update-your-app-now-%EF%B8%8F-look/319437999198523/
https://www.cyberlink.com/products/photodirector-photo-editing-software-365/comparison_en_US.html
It's not clear what the contributor will receive from the "free" downloads, but as it's a subset of the total library, perhaps some sort of deal was worked out with the contributors
This is the video on CyberLink's site that mentions the number of images, videos & music clips for PowerDirector 365
https://www.cyberlink.com/learning/powerdirector-video-editing-software/3042/using-shutterstock%E2%80%99s-media-library-powerdirector-365
Here's the video for PhotoDirector
https://www.cyberlink.com/learning/photodirector-photo-editing-software/3072/using-shutterstock's-media-library-photodirector-365
I don't see anything that restricts further use of the images in other applications or projects, but as users get to download the file, I assume they get an RF license to use it broadly.
Shutterstock had said they planned to do more of these API deals, so this isn't a surprise, but I find it depressing that our content is increasingly being used as an enticement to subscribe to something else (in which we don't get a share of the revenue).
Watch for subs from Taipei Taiwan?
10c subs I didn't sign up for SS to give away free pictures.
86
« on: August 19, 2020, 16:05 »
If they pay 0.05 for each picture to the reviewer, then there are no humans involved when the program runs. Seems to be automatic.
Ask Laurin Rinder he worked 3 years for Bigstock researching his best selling book.
87
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:15 »
88
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:09 »
PS: on a side note, I encourage everyone reading this to dump SS, don't JUST put your catalogue on hold. Make a statement, remove your content !!!! leaving it on shows them you're rolling on your back for a tummy rub. Submissive.
I agree.
I agree
89
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:07 »
I, too, am banned and I have never had any interaction with him at all. I wonder if its a Jon Oringer incognito account?
Incognito secret accounts, black opps. As seen on TV https://youtu.be/sRWtFVFSx5IIm also banned, I guess because I pointed out that he gets barely any sales. Easy enough to see his Twitter account, though, where he spends a lot of time retweeting Jo Ann, so I thank him for that, though he only has 14 followers so hes not helping us spread the message all that much. I feel sorry for the guy.
Very sorry. On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters 
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
Lonely guy  . Apparently he's blocked a lot of people so that he/she/it can reply to their tweets without response. Talk about one sided conversation
He has no followers, no likes and just seems to have taken upon himself to answer in shutterstock's place. Since they anyhow don't want to do it themselves
Seems like one more way SS botched their people handling and PR.  Or maybe its Stan/Jon's frustration account
Somebody who watches for your reactions, a big troll. SS wouldn't waste the time.
90
« on: July 17, 2020, 15:23 »
i just removed all my footage from 2020 if things don't improve by next month rest will come down, or i slowly delete some each day until there not much left. i thought about deactivating but i guess there the risk they will copy the footage :/ ?
what is the point of deleting your content on ss and at the same time submit to istock where they pay you less than ss?? just curious...
The point is, one has to start somewhere. Today, its SS. Focus.
Clap off, you aren't the boss of me.
91
« on: July 17, 2020, 15:21 »
but I've experienced this problem about every 3-4 montsh ever since I joined Shutterstock.
There's a big difference between your experience and frozen base. Yes, it's still frozen now. I do track some things and I see the same vectors in Newest since yesterday. Not a single image added. Publishing lag can affect portfolios, but something new will appear all the time anyway. Now they are just freeze for a 4 days.
Nope. As I have said. What is happening now is exactly what I have experienced in the past. It's a technical error Shutterstock keeps fighting with every few months.
For years...
327,314,999 is the search number
Over 327,118,204 royalty-free images with 506,889 new stock images added weekly.
Is bottom of the page promo. Also the same as usual, they are never in sync. or identical. When the real numbers were going down, the promo was higher. Now it's the other way.
not fair! you're using facts to support your case!
AI makes up those bottom of page numbers.
92
« on: July 17, 2020, 15:20 »
I have decided to delete my content on Shutterstock, not just disable it. Someone wrote a script that can do it for me. One by one would take forever. Can anyone share what that script is and how to use it please?
Good move, they don't deserve to have you for what they pay.
93
« on: July 17, 2020, 15:17 »
So shutterstock just put in a message that once you disable content you can't turn it on for 30 days. And that it'll negatively affect performance
Wow, these people just don't let up on the arm twisting and scare tactics. Since when did having a fair dialog go out of style
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Arm twisting and a way to stop the protest, that makes SS look worse scared. If public relations counts, on a scale of 1 to 10 they are a 1 because there is no 0.
94
« on: July 17, 2020, 15:11 »
Minimum is 10 cents, which means if some big buyer has a deal and pays, 25c an image, instead of us getting .075 we get 10c. No that's not anything to cheer about, but that also means SS is paying us more than our true commission when a buyer gets a extremely low price for images.
In most cases this is not true. Don't forget that most clients do not download all images in their subs-plan, but SS pays us % only of the downloaded images. They keep 100% for the ones the buyer did not download.
It's difficult for me to understand how some buyer would pay less than 25c a download or use, so that people on level 6 are still getting only 10c commission. But that's what the numbers say? I think there's some Facebook deal where they use images for advertising and pay on a contract,which could be lower than 25 a use, we'll all get 10c a use for those.
Very simple: image pack with 9000 downloads for $1999 (=0.22 per image).
How many buyers use their whole pack and how many don't? .22 per image, 9000 pack, would be losing .24 per image. $2160 lost when the buyer downloads 9000. That doesn't seem very smart. If the buyer uses half their subscription, SS loses $1080 makes $990 for no download, which is a net loss of $90. Who buys a 9000 subscription and only downloads half? Shutterstock is not an artists charity.
95
« on: July 01, 2020, 11:04 »
How about we can search for our own work to update keywords and edit, without search, copy, paste from the website with image number. Please make editing easier instead of pain.
96
« on: July 01, 2020, 10:57 »
All featured Adobe photographers still have their ports on SS? Today is July 1st not April 1st. Those featured ports are because of recent sales, nothing else. No one has made any deals. stop spreading false rumors and making up stories. Use the truth as your voice. Anybody can boycott or not, that's their choice, stop bullying and attacking them for free choice. 10 cents is not fair, not enough for the work, no one should accept that. Not motivated to make or upload anything. No contributor can afford a 0,10 payment per image. It's crazy.
I can find more money on the street when I go walking.
Staying with SS is crazy.
97
« on: June 30, 2020, 10:05 »
Yeah I know, it's just the spy stuff that got me sidetracked. 
Since I'm not on FB and I don't read all the tweets and I didn't join the group, just because I don't follow FB, nothing else. What was the name and why was it blanked out? Public service, public posts, I'd see nothing wrong with including their name. I only gathered it was a she from one of your posts? Makes me wonder who that was.
Not sure why he blacked out the name. Her first name was Svetlana, dont remember the last. She claimed to work for FB, but then her arguments were strange. Anyway, what she was saying made it seem like she was pro-SS/FB, hence the spy speculation. You had to be there. 😀
Thats disappointing about africastudio. In the end, everybody can be bought for a price. Im sure it was all negotiating tactics between them and SS. Oringer has lots of toys to pay for.
Thanks, half the population of Russia is named Svetlana. (the other half is male) 
About the censorship. I don't agree, but quoting from recent news:
Under current law, platforms are allowed to moderate anything they find "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. The DOJ, however, suggests that this standard is too vague and says the "otherwise objectionable" language should be removed from the law.
So for example, FB can find anything they want to be "objectionable" and remove it. Whether they are protecting a business alliance, the API which FB uses SS images, or something else, complaints, who knows what, I don't know. Apparently the first amendment doesn't apply to social platforms, unless it's someone trying to sue another person for what they post. But the platforms are not required to allow us to post, what they don't want and aren't actually liable for what individual users post.
You arent on FB anyway, you said. And yes, I know its a popular name. Its irrelevant.
He has 2 Facebook accounts, I found them in less then a minute.
98
« on: June 30, 2020, 10:03 »
Funny how he started off trying to deflect the cuts and now he just gave up. Facts simply do not support his garbage claim...insinuating that they added a higher tier. Very few will make that and then there is the annual reset. He truly is a disgusting person. I say that because now we know he supports Stan's move.
Nobody will believe his lies, the numbers don't lie. I'm down over 50% first month, his math is a lie.
99
« on: June 18, 2020, 16:09 »
Amazing, they are going from bad to worse and seem to be loving it!
Hard to be worse than iStock but Shutter is trying. This is the worst but not the lowest paying. How does anybody stay with either of them?
100
« on: June 18, 2020, 15:49 »
Not in years since Alamy became Microstock, and never since day one of Microstock.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
