|
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 ... 64
1
« on: June 25, 2025, 18:09 »
The only way I can give away my images is through my website, to do marketing FOR ME, not for agencies.
So, this year too: opt-out! Not a single image of mine in the Adobe Stock Free collection, if you want them, you pay! 
the point is NO ONE WANTS these images! i gladly take $4 of passive income for older images that havent sold.
and nothing prevents you from private sales - likely a very different audience
Most buyers dont shop around, or check if the same image is free on Adobe.
2
« on: June 06, 2025, 08:09 »
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
Going on 2 years and Shutterstock is still dead and still an embarrassment that keeps getting worse.
4
« on: March 15, 2025, 06:08 »
Closed down at $22.80. Its just $0.80 above it's IPO on 12 October 2012. Down it goes in step with downward earnings.
Nice graph, I was looking at that yesterday. The people who got in and then sold when the stock had doubled or tripled, aren't crying. Long ago, I was of the opinion that SSTK was a good $30 stock.
I keep looking at this part of the deal, and can't understand why the price of SSTK isn't higher? "Shutterstock shareholders can choose one of three options at closing: $28.85 in cash per share, 13.67 shares of Getty Images stock per share, or a combination of 9.17 Getty Images shares and $9.50 in cash per Shutterstock share."
Cash = $28.85
or
GETY 2.045 x 13.67 = $27.95
or
(9.17 shares) $18.79 + $9.50 = $28.29
Any of these are at worst $5/$6 better that the cost per share of SSTK. What's missing? Why aren't people buying at $22 to get back $28?
$19.55 close on Friday they really crashed
5
« on: March 13, 2025, 20:10 »
So are we assuming that after the merger, iStock exclusive content will be available on Shutterstock at higher prices?....so what will "exclusive" then mean if the content is available on so many outlets? Exclusive always seemed like a marketing ploy to me....I understand that it "works", but if a given "exclusive" asset has sold 1000 times, what exactly is "exclusive" about it from the customers point of view when it is being used in many places by many customers?
Good questions. What will exclusive mean if someone deletes everything that they sold before, everywhere else, sill used by those customers, and now it's "exclusive" on IS? I don't know what will happen to prices on IS or SS after this.
6
« on: February 21, 2025, 17:26 »
Through a six-year agreement, Shutterstock, Inc. (NYSE:SSTK) strengthened its partnership with OpenAI. As of July 2023, the company became the major provider of high-quality training data for OpenAIs models, demonstrating its commitment to leveraging AI technologies in developing its platform. Aiming at sustainability, the company has announced a merger with Getty Images in January 2025. It claims that the resulting expansion in the stock photo libraries will provide better competition against AI-driven image creation tools.
SS is a major provider of training data to the main competitor for microstock, while merging with Getty to better defend against the loss of business to AI. SS is paying a dividend of .33 March 6th. Watch the price on March 7th.
7
« on: February 03, 2025, 17:14 »
Do you have to caption your own work?
.... and they ask me to caption it. Those are the ones I make stuff up for - I think one I said was a clandestine drug deal.
it's not for training, as there's no way to verify the info entered .. i just randomly hit the keyboard to create, eg, " uhhio ouiuin ijin mi mmip " and it's always accepted. obviously no one's going to read it
I just typed in, "I can't find a cat" if they want dumb I can play along.
8
« on: February 03, 2025, 17:12 »
my position on January 26th is....I don't know!I'll check again on January 31st! 
You need to check every day and post your current weekly rank here, every day. If nothing changes just post the same meaningless nonsense over again with the time and day.
At least In Justice only posts his weekly rank, once a week.
9
« on: January 24, 2025, 09:58 »
Yes, no disagreement. MY point was, YOUR results or MY results, can't be applied to any theories or decisions by others that site A has better search or algorithm results, than site B, based on our personal experiences or our different types, styles or images.
The whole, which is best, is totally personal and subjective.
I disagree, there is certainly a difference between the algorithms between the agencies. It's not the same and just differentiated because of personal experiences. They are in fact different which might suit ones personal expectations or not. So it's just the other way around I would say.
Which is best in your opinion and why?
10
« on: January 20, 2025, 10:17 »
You really think writing to Shutterstock will help?
Contributors are an inconvenience and an unwanted financial drain. They really, REALLY dont care what we think.
Exactly!
11
« on: January 20, 2025, 10:15 »
So what do I see? I see that the video review and acceptance on Shutterstock has become very long. I have been waiting for a video review for over a week. This has never happened before! It is obvious that the reviewer has been fired or transferred to work at Getty. This is the beginning of the end for Shutterstock.
I was actually wondering if iStock have begun using Shutterstock reviewers with a number of strange rejects on iStock just recently.
They haven't merged yet, how would that happen?
12
« on: January 20, 2025, 10:09 »
13
« on: January 18, 2025, 15:44 »
I have another theory about whats happening, especially on Adobe. I wont go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, Ive seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated contentimages and videos that look suspiciously similar to the top-selling ones on the platform.
Of course, last year, we got paid quite a bit because they "trained" their AI using our images. But what really worries me is the possibility that these accounts aren't real people, but rather fake company-run accounts, designed to grab all the earnings from contributors who actually put in the work and figured out what sells.
Through AI, they could be generating almost identical content under these fake profiles to compete with and replace real contributors. If thats the case, they wouldnt just be profiting from AItheyd be cutting us out entirely.
I really hope these accounts belong to independent people who are simply analyzing top-selling content and artificially copying it. Because if they are actually company-run accounts, created to take even more of our earnings, it would be a massive disappointmentespecially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
You started with a leading question and suspicion that Shutterstock is manipulating the numbers, based on your sales being down. Now you are suspicious about Adobestock having company run AI accounts to copy best sellers and your work. But you don't want to start rumors about conspiracy theories, or plots. No you wouldn't want to do that.
And who said I dont want to start rumors? 
Maybe you should try reading a little slower and focusing more on the subtext of what you're reading.
It helps.
Oh you did come here to start rumors and create suspicion, without any facts or evidence.
Not saying its a fact, but is there some manipulation going on from time to time?
No and Adobe didn't create zombie AI accounts to steal our best sellers. What's next, they are lying about sales and hiding them from our earnings. That one already showed up again, with no proof.
14
« on: January 15, 2025, 13:52 »
It's strange that the idea of creating Hyperstock has never been discussed on this forum before.
That's so you. If you can't find something or don't see it, then it doesn't exist. Your support at P5 isn't the same as everyone else, so you invent your answer, it's been ended and taken over by ss. Now you say we never discussed Hyperstock. https://www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/hyperstock/ Somebody gave you a + for that false claim.
15
« on: January 07, 2025, 09:01 »
16
« on: January 06, 2025, 10:44 »
Here's something about Microstock. Pretty much all the same images, from all the same artists and sources are available on all the major agency sites.
Exactly right. This is one of several reasons why this merger doesn't make sense. But if happens, there are some interesting implications for contributor ports. Simple merge would not work because of duplicates. What takes precedence? Then, what would be front end facing contributors? Shutterstock is better by wide margin; but if Getty drives the merger they'd probably want to keep their model - once a month reporting ? Managed Vocabulary ? Etc.
I am quite certain merger will not happen. But it provides entertainment on Forums like this one.
Corporate merger doesn't mean a website merger.
17
« on: January 06, 2025, 10:42 »
Collect, close and leave now. Delete all images and close your account on 123RF before they keep your money after they sold your images.
18
« on: November 28, 2024, 11:24 »
Sorry I was distracted by cheap unrealistic mugs. Nice link, I didn't know I could do that https://pete-klinger.pixels.com/shop/coffee+mugs
Seems that review times are still random and not systematic. Someone else wrote me that their videos, some are reviewed, some have been weeks, and something new, got reviewed in days, while the old ones are sitting.
I don't have any theory or answer, except it's random, but the fact is, they are varied and unpredictable.
You have your own private stalker who follows your accounts. They started here for one message and didn't post anything again for 7 years. Now you're getting reviews, advice on what you should write here and they monitor your microstock. I think you should avoid and ignore anyone who is following you, don't answer or reply to taunts or unwanted attention. That's my advice. Review times are better now, I'm seeing faster reviews lately.
19
« on: June 25, 2024, 01:45 »
I tried wirestock a couple of years ago,after 2-3 months I deleted everything and closed the account,and judging by the gains I see from those who use it I have done well.
When they went pay, I left the account active. I still have around 500 images, which are distributed to sites where I have no account. 123RF, DP, Evanto, a bunch more, in other words, everywhere except SS, AS, AL, IS and DT. And some of those have rejects and other files, activated for sale, from WS. Odd how that works? Rejected personally, but accepted at WS and the agency that rejected the image?
It makes me as much a year as IS, which is a nice bottle of single malt. For free, I do no work, I'm happy.
But I wouldn't pay for the right to upload or have them do the keywords and distribution. Maybe some other people find it a benefit? I'd have to have many more images, to make it worthwhile.
Of course,it's all subjective in the end,it depends on what works for you,or simply what you prefer to do.
as far as I know,based on what those who use wirestock say,more or less you get 10usd a month for around 5000 contents,then maybe clearly this will be different for someone I don't know.
what I know,and that's fine with me,it's just that it's not worth leaving content on display for thieves and copycats if an agency makes so little,not to mention the waste of time it takes to upload and all the various problems it can cause,such as in this case the free collection without pay.
If an agency doesn't make much money,it's better to let it go than settle for crumbs and have too much wasted time and various problems.
Wirestock isn't an agency, they are a distributor to agencies. You can't blame Wirestock for thieves any more than the actual agencies, which are the same as we upload to and the same as they distribute to. If you make $10 a month on WS then you would make $10 a month on your own. Wirestock is not an agency.
20
« on: May 15, 2024, 06:55 »
My SS earnings used to be 15x higher than now, and they just keep nosediving from month to month. Once a good earner, now abomination. Seems like it will join mid-tier agencies soon. Inexcusable.
During this same time, my Adobe Stock earnings has been growing, and Istock has been consistent.
I'm considering to start treating SS like the other mid-tier agencies and completely stop uploading there.
Identical experience for me too.
This. In the 20 years I've been doing this, I've never even considered an exclusive agreement, but if Adobe offered one, I'd drop the rest of them, inlcuding SS. They used to be 50% of my total revenue, now they are 10-20% while adobe is 60-80%.
Nearly every sale now is a Single Other for 10 cents. Adobe will never offer exclusive, but if they did, I'm with you.
21
« on: April 16, 2024, 13:00 »
22
« on: February 13, 2024, 16:52 »
It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details. But it comes from a trusted contributor, experienced, with a pretty old portfolio.
At the end of October, we decided to make a control purchase on the Shutterstock, collaborated with colleagues and bought a package of 25 Standard one-time demands. Purchases were made of works that had never been sold, with the help of a real customer within a spread of 10 days.
Divided it like this: 5 purchases from my accounts, 11 purchases from colleagues accounts, 9 purchases randomly.
Of my five - 1 appeared on the first day, 1 - after a couple of days, and another one after 4 days
The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7
So, 70% of the sales via one-time demands package are lost! What do you think about this?
If any of this is true, you need to take the evidence to the state attorney general of New York. Then get representation and file a class action suit on our behalf, all of us can collect back earnings after an audit.
23
« on: February 09, 2024, 08:00 »
The thieves make money because they skim off better content. We all know that, as a general rule, 20% of the images make 80% of the money, but if they are selecting the best images, then they can certainly increase the sales percentage in their favour. It's always been quality over quantity, so if you steal 50 spectacular images, then they are likely to make more than a beginner with 50 snapshots of his back yard.
Valid points. I remember on the old SS forum, a thief was discovered and quite a few of us contributors were browsing through his port of stolen goods. The images selected were extremely high quality. Like the best of the best with all different kinds of subjects. It was quite a decent sized port too if I recall correctly. I wouldn't be surprised if this thief was making a ton of money.
The names look fake, and many people use a + in their name. Wack A Mole.
24
« on: February 09, 2024, 07:57 »
I see what you mean, I'll take that advice.  He writes to answer his own messages.
25
« on: December 14, 2023, 10:25 »
They rolled out improvements that disable editing function. You can't copy keywords anymore. Catalog manager is replaced by some terrible Marketplace Editor. We lose ways to work and they roll out new versions that no one needs or asks for. Don't be surprised next time you try to upload or edit. There is a tab for now to use legacy, we don't know how long that will stay. There's also a comment tab on top. Try the new and tell them what you think.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
