|
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 - blvdone
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35
802
« on: March 04, 2021, 12:40 »
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
I think Shutterstock tried to discourage low earners to upload photos with the new commission tier system. To be honest, I'm all for that concept. But the problem is low sales this year with mostly $0.10 subs, unfair video commission tier system and disgustingly low price video subscription. So, I hope more contributors will un-license portfolio there especially those who had been big sellers there.
But they may also be discouraging a lot of people who produce good sellable content.
They sure do. I hope that'll be their miscalculation that'll bring them down and roll back what they did last year.
803
« on: March 04, 2021, 11:17 »
804
« on: March 04, 2021, 11:13 »
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
Exactly. Which is why I'm asking, how far will these sites continue to drop royalties before people as a whole just stop submitting. The sites clearly have learned we're nowhere near the bottom. They can continue dropping royalties and angering contributors because the line of new contributors who are willing to accept anything is longer than the angered contributors who leave.
I think Shutterstock tried to discourage low earners to upload photos with the new commission tier system. To be honest, I'm all for that concept. But the problem is low sales this year with mostly $0.10 subs, unfair video commission tier system and disgustingly low price video subscription. So, I hope more contributors will un-license portfolio there especially those who had been big sellers there.
805
« on: March 04, 2021, 10:46 »
"childish" springs to mind 
Calling someone a "stupid redneck m'fer" is really contemptable.
Go get your dose of lithium
Fellow troll to the rescue.
806
« on: March 04, 2021, 10:16 »
I don't think the payment has ever come this early in the month for me before. SS must have decided to do something to get a positive reaction, for a change
They nearly doubled their cashflow in the midst of pandemic. I wonder how they did it. Maybe that's why they pay us quick now. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SSTK/cash-flow?p=SSTK
808
« on: March 04, 2021, 09:15 »
OK you hater HodagMedia on Shutterstock forum. You should work on your photo skill rather than wasting your time posting craps you stupid redneck MFer.
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-girl-showing-middle-fingers-on-697911292
Don't mince your words BLVDONE. Come out with it. Say what you really think. ..
Yes, I just want to have people here, see what kind of person he really is. Many have commented and criticized him for his incoherent rants and never ending rubbish, but he's got this personal "thing" for me. Wow, an obsessed angry person, calling me names and personally attacking me, on yet another forum, because I dare to disagree with the mighty Blvdone. Well I'm not going to sink to his childish levels. Just the facts...
He's already banned on SS forums after pushing the limits for a couple months. Maybe he's trying to get banned here too? 
Oh and yes, I should be working on improving my photo skills, that's always a good idea for all of us? Always keep improving and learning.
I have no problem anybody disagreeing with me, but you and some others do personal attacks against me. I'm only rude to those who are rude to me making personal attacks. I never start attacking people first. I only react to those who attack me. So, try being nice and respectful even when you disagree with somebody posting on forums. Learn to be a better person and a productive part of a society. That's my advice to you HodagMedia. I've never ridiculed and attacked others first on those forums like you and other useless trolls do. So, look at yourself in the mirror. P.S. Mr. Oringer has a better stock photo portfolio than you do imo. Bye.
809
« on: March 04, 2021, 08:14 »
Oringer's Twitter comments last June when the new paycut was announced was entirely supportive of the move. He said so multiple times. At one point he had a pretty good rant against the contributors complaining.
Yup. He basically tweeted telling contributors to GTFO if you don't like Shutterstock's new move last tyear.
810
« on: March 04, 2021, 07:27 »
At what point do people as a whole consider this a waste of time where the effort isn't worth the return?
Obviously, for the last 3, 4 years, content massively increased as thousands of new contributors came in uploading to stock sites. I'm hoping now that it's not worth uploading new contents for so many people anymore, thousands will quit and we'll go back to somewhere near the way it used to be.
811
« on: March 04, 2021, 07:22 »
Nowadays there are about 2800 Competitors with more than 14.000 files at shutterstock.
How do you know? That's an amazing number.
812
« on: March 04, 2021, 05:22 »
What SS did was evil. It comes from a very dark place where only sociopaths dare the tread.
They were already making a lot of money, so they didn't need to cut artist commissions. They did it purely out of greed in the middle of a pandemic, while putting out phony virtue about BLM and social justice.
I honestly hope SS a quick death and Adobe Stock take their place at the top. At least Adobe have an incentive to keep artists happy because their biggest source of revenue comes from artists using their software. Shutterstock provide nothing else.
Totally agree. I hope Shutterstock to go bankrupt and their stock option become worthless. Yes, them posing as social justice advocate is laughable. Total hypocrite if Shutterstock was a person. They pretend they care about artists by creating artist grant fund using a tiny portion of money they took from us with their new commission system. lol Shutterstock truly is a sociopath.
813
« on: March 04, 2021, 05:15 »
They paid me today, for February. Pretty quick. You didn't criticize them in public, right?
If you ask me, I did not, I just post on their forum to ask if someone had the same problem of missing payment..but if someone criticize them I do not think that they would not send payment because of that, it was obvious some glitch in the system, sorry for my english
Your English is perfect.
815
« on: March 03, 2021, 20:52 »
Personally I think it's their new CEO Stan P who's the big ass wipe in this company. I think he's shot SS in the foot with his new subscription business strategy. The place is a sheet hole now not just for contributors it seems, but customers too.
I agree, but Oringer made him the CEO, I think. So, it's both of them who decided to hurt us contributors in the midst of pandemic to instantly pump up their stock price.
816
« on: March 03, 2021, 17:29 »
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anymore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
817
« on: March 03, 2021, 17:14 »
They paid me today, for February. Pretty quick. You didn't criticize them in public, right?
818
« on: March 03, 2021, 06:44 »
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
I believe the forum is a place to whine and let them know how we feel. No need to play nice after they deliberately took our money to prop up their stock price and increase their stock option payout by millions of $$$. I would be nice if they were nice to us contributors. So, stop playing nice to the devils making our lives harder. They only exploit our weakness. They struck first. We strike back.
819
« on: March 03, 2021, 06:32 »
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
Surprised he's not got a temporary ban or at least a warning for: "You should work on your photo skill rather than wasting your time posting craps you stupid redneck MFer".
Maybe he got a warning, you never know. Seems a bit of a step up from an 'opinion'.
This Uncle Pete HodagMedia guy has been rude to me on Shutterstock forum and here. I'm not the one who attack somebody first. I'm only reacting to somebody being rude attacking me. That MFer only posts meaningless crap.
821
« on: March 02, 2021, 15:30 »
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Soon you will be banned and your account closed noone will miss you.
I'm all for good relationship between contributors and an agency. I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio. I thought his photos sucked in terms of skill and artisticity despite them being from nearly 20 years ago. But that wasn't the main point of my post on Shutterstock. My point was that Jon probably wasn't those who pride in their creations in photos and videos. I thought he probably thinks we should be happy making some money on the side from photos that would've been collecting dust in our hard drives. If he was one of us creators who pride in our works, he wouldn't have done what he has done in the midst of pandemic to hurt us. That' was my point of the original post on Shutterstock. Although his photos lacked professional skill and artisticity, I can see that he gets why and what would sell in stock photos. That's why he has been a successful businessman growing his Shutterstock into multi billion dollar corporation. He has made all the right decisions for the company and for us for so many years, until last year imo. So, I'm not trying to trash him at all. I was trying to understand and find a clue of why Jon Oringer did what he did last year with Shutterstock to hurt us contributors. I just hope that he'll correct his mistakes he made last year and roll back changes Shutterstock made to pre-covid days when most of us were happy working with Shutterstock.
822
« on: March 02, 2021, 11:30 »
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Of all the reasons you gave them, they chose the best one!
Obviously, some admins have a good sense of humor!
Jon is a fellow contributor. He should be angry about the changes Shutterstock made last year too!! lol
823
« on: March 02, 2021, 11:01 »
I stopped uploading ANYthing on SS since their commission robbery.
Now I don't sell more videos and I have a lot of $0,87 or $3,.. sales, and almost even no extended licenses anymore for vectors
I don't know if it's kind of a coincidence but I take it as if : very massive sales on P5 this month and last night amongst many 28 and sometimes 70 sales, 4x 175 on Adobe Stock! Farewell SS
I have done exactly the same thing, except I sell only Vectors and Photo's and sales have gone up on Adobe Stock.
SS sales are not only down, but of course so is the commission, last month was the first time in nine years that I didn't receive a payout.
I'm also very happy to sell recent videos on Adobe Stock at strong prices and knowing they are not (and will never be) on SS.
Totally understand the feeling. Every time I saw those sub $10 (actually mostly sub $5) video subs sales reports, I felt angry thinking what I could've made on Adobe Stock and Pond5 for the same video sales. It's the peace of mind that's priceless now that I don't see those infuriating sales reports.
824
« on: March 02, 2021, 10:35 »
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
825
« on: March 02, 2021, 08:07 »
I think this is always ongoing somewhere when you upload to those unlimited download sites. Somebody can just download thousands of clips in a week and sell as their own somewhere else.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
