Hi,

I uploaded my files to stockphoto.com and got some sales over the first 2-3 months, at least i could see that they have made sales. Unfortunately after the 4th month my sales are 0. Considering the amount of file I've had online there, I represented some 5% of their portfolio. Nevertheless, after the 5th month i cannot even log into the site and check what is going on. At the beginning i had active communication with some guy named Lauren from support team but after i canno5t login, there has been no reply from him or anybody else. also, his initial signature is "Lauren Clarke, Support Team Lead" but on my last email his signature is "Lauren Clarke, Support Fraud Team Lead", which is somewhat odd. My portfolio is still there and if he is selling, he is not paying for it. What a fraudulent behavior!

Definitely scam, no question about it.

Beware people, Best

somebody needs to post this new divide and rule attempt to the microstock.ru forum

only the petition has been listed in the micrstock.ru
i tried to open a subject but i cannot, i'm not authorized to do so

edited:
Sorry my previous info was not correct, there is live discussion going on about the new royalty scheme in the forum.

Best

gnirtS. ^^^

Well done, you really made an investigation for this!

Way to go!
Bravo Yayimages - sent out email announcing their future plans and the help they provide for contributors getting their portfolio online
Big, Big bravo for Dreamstime - just recieved an email with 10% bigger royalties for contributors!
Bravo Again!
Deposit is also very helpful agency

This was what i was talking about in my initial post from 2 days ago.

Check your emails people

Feeling the heat?

We are changing the landscape, slowly but we are getting traction.
both moves, the india phone factoriesand the contributors status cover proves something is being done.

iStock 2.0, have you had enough? do you need more heat? its up to you! If i were you, i would stop this nonsense and cheap tactics since they devalue your credibility even faster. let's cut this negativity and get on to business. lets discuss together and i'm sure we can come to an agreement. we are not unresonable, but you are leaving us no choice. we cannot survive this move.

Your turn!

Quote from: georgep7 on May 29, 2020, 11:31
you are correct, I cannot dictate you anything

be well

Be well you too. So happy that we can come to an agreement.

The idea behind me writing where i come from was that we can all somehow feel more connected.

it would be nice to see more engagement from people all over the globe trying to fix thier common issues.
So  you know that there is a contributor behind, trying to make ends meet in this tough environment that is changing everyday, where we are forced to make tough choices in order to survive. the framework we operate in is the toughest there is, you couldn't get any more competitors than the whole world. this and in fact anytime is the time to be smart and act towards achieving our common goal. you and everybody's effort should be directed towards what can you do today so that we can all benefit. i'll do the same and we will be better off bocause of it.
do not let penny differences divide us, we are together in this, we, the contributors!
all the best,

love, unity, respect, responsible, tough and smart

Quote from: thx9000 on May 28, 2020, 11:29
It seems that they hired some indian click farm to spam their apps with positive reviews on Gplay. Just when you think they can't sink any lower...

This is good, we are beginning to make a point. this proves that they have been forced to make an action. one step at a time, we will put more pressure and they will have to recognize. keep up the good work people, together we will succeed. continue sharing ideas and results from your actions. it motivates further action by other contributors.

lets build the energy of the momentum  even more

Quote from: Visualab on May 28, 2020, 01:15
The stock submitters coalition already has over 330 members and represents a portfolio of over 2 million items. Join the cause and help make a difference. https://forms.gle/cEN6kAjcqyqtUbBj9

If you joined it but did not receive the email I just sent out then go back in and fill it out one more time. The first ten people it didn't collect emails.

We need to open a fb group immediately and start agreeing how to move on. before you let people in, you need to evaluate them for beeing real submitters and not spies. unlocking contributors will ease the process and bring even more people in that are on the same side. you cannot do this alone and you shouldn't be left alone. do not make this impossible for yourself. you have made first move and it was accepted. now its time for a second one. cheers

Something like this does not come out of the company without the top management approving it. This is not done solely by the new CEO. Jon has to be aware and have approved this move.
If i was SS, i would be terrified if the following happens:
-no new material is uploaded
-contributors leave
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
-smaller insignificant ordinary joe's starting debate and grouping together to make a move (thats you and me)
-competitors receive new material that is top notch quality
-competitors jump on and sweeten the deal for the fleeing contributors
-Competitors advertise on the loss of SS, which then triggers more of the bad publicity...
-this does not go unnoticed and we keep the pressure on for as long as it takes! The ones that stick and do not leave. Remember, its our livelihood we are discussing here. You cannot stay passive. If you do, you deserve the next wave of 0.01$ per license. I quit iStock when i saw 0.02$/download.
-all of us start fueling the discussions on all the different forums/groups/memberships where we are part of...
-after a while we come together and make our presence (or even better) absence noticed
-Form some sort of grouping which will have some very basic rules like minimum fee if you want our assets in your offer
-journalists start writing on the subject that contributors are getting together and debating how to respond not only to SS latest move, but to all iStock's and iStock's 2.0 alike in the future with immediate move against the greedy SS. This will trigger even more escaping from the boat that is sinking.
-photography/video/illustrations forums need to burn from debates right now!
-marketing agencies need to notice that for fresh/relevant/top notch new material they need to look elsewhere from IStock 2.0
-their most cherished unique selling proposition, the monthly fee and download per day is gone, dead. This was what made them since it was tailored to agency's needs. They have no USP anymore apart of the wast library of our assets. In the library, they are not alone. They are not in line with what the agencies or the wast majority of buyers (small bloggers) need. This move is to become relevant, which is ok, but not without a shared burden. Non of us will disagree if they transform the model so that we and SS share the %. The greedy part, the one sided devaluation is what wrong in this.
-we continue with our pressure, even a passive will do, remember mahatma gandi, which will force them to notice us. I do not wish them bad, they are not the enemy, their lack of visionary skills and commitment to long term mutual success is the enemy. I do not wish them bankruptcy, but their move is on a sure path for that. Lets not punish them on the weaknesses we all posses. Lets guide them before we separate our paths.
-after a while this becomes nightmare for them forcing them to back their decision. Can you imagine our satisfaction when this occurs. To be honest, for DPC initiative i supported with about 10-20% of my portfolio deletion. I was very proud when fotolia backed from their plan. If this succeeds, you will all be part of the Honored contributor appreciation 2.0. Let then some peanut agency come and propose a scheme like this. If we fail, brace yourselves for the iStock 3.0, then 4.0 and so on. You will then someday be at a bar remembering the days when you were living out of your creativity.
-they have lost a great deal of credibility here. There are the silent contributors which will vanish and their content will not be present due to lack of sustainability of the model. Regaining this credibility will take time and effort. And we have good memory and are willing to forgive, not forget. Say this was kelly's initiative and she is fired. We apologize for this and return to normal.

Other ideas are more than welcome.

Let's do all this and watch what happens. Anyway, its covid time and we are socially active.

Ss please reverse this bad decision and let us all focus on creating top content which we will all be proud of. Lets focus on the future together. We cannot be pushed aside and be expected to continue business as usual. We cannot survive with lower incomes, its difficult enough as it is already. If we are gone, the factories will impose stricter commissions in the future and you will be the one left out dry. Help us to help you achieve the growth you hired the new ceo for. This is done with strong partnership behavior, not slave-master relationship. We are not able to continue and we will weather away to another agency which threats contributor honestly.

Sorry for the long text, hope is not worthless

Best regards from eastern Europe, Skopje, Macedonia

Quote from: spike on May 27, 2020, 07:25
This sounds like bad news, but we all need to keep our cool. Personally, I've been waiting for something like this since video subs were implemented, but that didn't cause such a reaction.  If there was ever a time for a coordinated effort by contributors, it's now. Just my portfolio is around 50k assets, and I'm sure that, if needed, we can create a coordinated strong strike. But we need to see how will this affect us, using data, not emotions.

First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.

So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:

1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.

Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.

Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:

1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.

We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.

contributors hold significant say in an agency future, but we are so many and scattered all over the globe. if you remember almost 70-80% of SS royalties are paid in eastern europe. the last time in fact the olny time we have made a difference was exactly with boycott fotolia initiative. it was done by ukranian contributors to which we all joined. it has to be done that way.

I just had the opportunity to answer their survey (the same one that we answered at least 10 times already). You can imagine my answer today! 

Haven't uploaded since the D-day and will not anytime soon, at least until their DNA changes as it was stated earlier by Cobalt. In fact, i'm half step from pulling my entire portfolio out. I guess I'm just waiting to the final drop...

Skopje, Makedonija, Pozdrav na site

same with me, i just found one image that is not on istock and not on thinkstock

Nope, me as well.

Linda,

There are two issues here, end price in terms of $ and % comm's. I'm interested in both.

2: 44% is less than 50% but let's say that you will adjust that long term, so ok.

3: Put it in other words, lowering the end price will benefit mostly Yay as our images are distributed already to end user in some way. So the only beneficiary is bottom line Yay, while the photographers will get increased number of sales in the beginning, they stand to loose their overall income as the $ comm's decrease long term;

4&5: "Our aim is not to get customers from competitors by lowing our prices, but to create products mainly for new customers" this is my concern mostly. How are you going to secure this? Customers will not be "made" due to Yay's new plan, rather derived from existing one's. " For all sales we generate that isn't form a competitor every dollar will be a dollar extra in your account. " - But a dollar less I might add due to the fact that I'm already distributed by your competitor(s), so how will this new Yay's plan benefit me with lowered comm's?

6: So the 50% turned 30% and this is ok? That's exactly what i was commenting in my original post. You have pledged to keep 50% and yet came up with a scheme in which the 50% becomes 30%. Sorry, but it looks like to me that this 30% will soon become even less in some other plan.

I think it would be helpful if you start contributing and/or buying images from your site so that the things are looked at from several perspectives.

This is after all a partner deal, so both partners should benefit sustainably and i'm not convinced that this is the right thing for us photographers.

Best regards,
D

Hi Yay,

1. Discussing the issue with contributors = increased trust (+1), if it remains + depends on your move alone;

2. Touching sensitive part of the agreement like commissions especially in a what-it-looks-like decreased % = less trust (-1);

3. Trying to cover the deal with future trust due to increased sales = suspicious (mainly due to common sense and competitive experience) = less trust (-1);

4. Opt out = initially more trust, BUT: We have signed with Yay due to 50% commissions, extremely easy upload process, good $ commission, so what ., we give it a try, we cannot lose. From contributor point of view, more competition on the distributors side = possible better deals for photographers for future. This does not look like it. To me it seems that you are trying to increase overall business (which is very much ok) but on the expense on the photographer (not ok). Yay does not care if its income of $100 comes from 100 images sold or from 10.000. On the end fiscal year statement it is exactly the same, while for us contributors it makes a whole lot of difference. Don't get me wrong, i would like to sell as much as possible, but not below the industry standard subscription based $ per image downloaded (between $0.36 and $0.38). It is standard for me as it makes more that 50% income. I as a contributor am interested in raising this % and $, after all this was part of my strategy when i joined Yay. This is especially true for newcomers in the stock market. Sorry Yay, you have to develop your business using other added value services rather then undercutting the very branch that we both sit on. Customer value is not derived solely from price. Bottom line (-1);

5. We were here before Yay, meaning that our images were somehow distributed to end users before. Why should we agree to a less lucrative deal than that of even much stronger distributors? Yay, please try to look in another way to expand. Sorry (-1)

6. And one additional thing not very much connected with this offer, but not insignificant at all. You claim 50% commission (at least up to now) and yet at the same time you go on and negotiate partner programs from which the end user gets 25% of the deal. Sure, its 50% from the money you get, but still 25% for the photographer. Please enlighten me: Why should the photographers cut their 25% so that Yay can negotiate a deal with partner program? Correct me if I'm wrong, but its in Yay's part of the obligations (undertaken with the initial contributor-distributor deal) to go ahead and promote/grow the business by increasing the sales of the site the best way it can. We (contributors) are obliged to produce the best quality we can, which we more-or-less do. If you want/need to partner with other micro sites, I think its fair the the 25% comes from your cut and not from ours. It makes sense to me that you have positioned yourself between us and other distributor which at the end sells the image to buyer, so Yay and the partner should divide the 50% after the contributor has been paid if you want to continue being fair. Putting it differently, what stops Yay from making sister(s) company(ies) (that will get 25%) and than partnering with other (possibly several more) sites until the image is sold to end user? With such pipeline, its only a matter of time until we start discussing the fairness of 5% vs. 10% from the end price. This is what Getty is doing all along and that's why we all feel so frustrated and with less trust to any such moves from anyone, including Big stock as the trial ground for SS. The statement that you cannot control the end price in some deals is your problem to solve, don't throw it to us, please. (-2). Opt out form PP (+1), overall (-1)

My future move (hold submission, opt out or delete my portfolio) depends solely on what you decide to do. Sorry Yay, but it would be much easier move than that of IS. I have very little to loose.

So far (-4), one more (-) and something should be done. I think very fair feedback from me. I don't even bother writing if I do not believe you deserve it, Yay (this means that I'm still positive with Yay).

Sorry everyone for the large read,
Dimitar