|
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 - H2O
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11
126
« on: June 06, 2020, 13:08 »
Give it time and all the good content will be deleted.
I have, just like others been tracking the numbers and they are losing hundreds of thousands a day, in three days over a million and a half overall.
I'm not sure how many they get in new images a day but even with these they are going down quick, looking at the new uploads they are 99% utter rubbish.
A rough calculation by the end of the month they will have lost 15 million images, probably more taking into account all the uploads of rubbish they are getting.
If they lose 30 million in a month or so, those images will all be heavy hitting content, it is the talent moving out, no matter what they do, no stock site can sustain these losses, this along with no new quality means Shutterstock is finished.
Of course Pavlovsky won't bother, as he is just a bean counter, not knowing the difference between great and rubbish, only towards the end of the year and subscriptions are not renewed and the buyers stop buying will it become apparent, that he is about to be fired, by then no one will go back.
127
« on: June 06, 2020, 05:17 »
Personally I believe that we need to go darker than this, photobombing, writing reviews, commenting on Facebook, etc. . . are all very well.
If I lived in NY I would find out where Oringer and his side kick Pavlovsk live and start a civil disobedience campaign against them.
I don't mean violence I mean informing all his neighbors about what they are doing, protesting outside their houses, posting leaflets and posters around their area, spray painting their gates and walls with messages, protesting outside their offices, phoning them up a million times a day, phoning the company up a million times a day, jamming their phone lines.
Spamming their inboxes by the millions, flooding their buyer lines with calls and emails, having a co-ordinated attack on the website and making it a denial of service.
There are a million ways to take it to the next level.
More direct action is required.
128
« on: June 05, 2020, 15:46 »
It's a classic case of 'Pump and Dump'
They are Asset Stripping the Company and the assets are the contributors.
Personally I believe that the American system of Capitalism seems to have become corrupted, mostly they act like the Mafia in the Martin Scorsese film Goodfellers.
Shutterstock shareholders are doing exactly the same at the moment, they are asset stripping the creatives.
And when they can't squeeze anymore cash out of the Company they will cash out, by selling the company on to someone else; Getty who have acted in a similar way has captive contributors in 'Exclusives' along with various collections of imagery from companies that it has acquired over the years, it has been able to effectively mortgage future revenues, these have been used to sell and buy the company from one bunch of Asset Strippers to another, leaving the company with heavy debts.
Shutterstock doesn't have Exclusives' or collections, their problem is the talent is walking, I know people who have for a long time had a problem with finding the right imagery, saying things like, 'Once you have waded through all the crap' and as we all know there is great piles of spammed imagery, this never used to happen.
All the full time contributors will also have worked or will be working or know people in the advertising and design business and will be prime influencers, this move is checkmate.
There is no mug to buy the Company, they have made a strategic mistake, they don't own or control anything, it is just a selling platform.
129
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:13 »
This is what happens when the wealthy move in on the talent and steal the assets.
American companies are renowned for this in the UK, over the years they have moved into loads of companies and asset stripped them.
Their usual exit plan after a couple of years, is once they have taken everything that isn't nailed down, they flog off what is left to the management and a couple of years later the company goes bust. The American company Blackstone did this to a Company called Southern Care Homes, they sold all the freeholds and then sold the company having walked away with many millions. When they had to pay rents the business became unsustainable, by that time Blackstone was long gone.
The British Government ended up having to bail them out, otherwise they would have had over twenty thousand old people with nowhere to live.
We have a long list of American Companies doing this over here in the UK and our Government does nothing about it, and this is apart from them offshoring the tax they owe, like Amazon and Google.
Personally I believe that the American system of Capitalism seems to have become corrupted, mostly they act like the Mafia in a Martin Scorsese film.
Shutterstock shareholders are doing exactly the same at the moment, they are asset stripping the creatives.
It is the ordinary people who's lives they destroy that is the real travesty.
131
« on: June 04, 2020, 14:51 »
Just logged into the site and there was a pop up survey asking me about my experience with them, and numerous questions, finished it with this:-
Sort out how much you are charging your buyers, so that you can pay a decent commission to your contributors, and dont take advantage of them as you are now doing. Adobe actually increased their commission last year.
Then you had the bonkers idea last year, to change the way we upload Vectors, no other site does this because it is stupid basically, even though every contributor told you this you took no notice.
So I dont expect you to take any notice of what I have written, but I along with all the other Contributors who make your content are extremely upset at being treated like SLAVES, and you should all be ashamed of yourselfs.
Your CEO Stan Pavlovsky is nothing more than a bean counter who is only interested in ripping off, stealing our money, it is a absolutely appalling way to treat people.
Spend a day or two reading the comments on your Forum and you will see what people think of you.
132
« on: June 04, 2020, 12:32 »
Astrantia, no one wants to hear this also but it is true. My wife before she retired was a large buyer of images for a large corporation. She had accounts with Istock and SS. Her only goal was to find images that were correct for her assignment ASAP. She did not care what the price was as she has accounts already setup. All she wanted were images or illustrations that would work. We all think our images are special and they are to us. To my wife the buyer of images it was just a job finding images and she wanted to finnish her job so she could go home that day without working overtime that night.
This of course is exactly how large companies operate, your wife will have a trained eye for a good image.
133
« on: June 04, 2020, 12:15 »
I have tracked the numbers of images that they have for sale since yesterday and overall they are down 62000 on a day, it will be interesting to see what happens when they pay everyone, as I imagine we will see a big spike in Portfolio's being pulled.
The talent is walking and I expect that to accelerate as the month goes on.
134
« on: June 03, 2020, 16:18 »
Oh, and I think the biggest non insider share holder of SS is Blackrock. They are literally strangling Argentina right now when even the World Bank thinks they should cut them some slack before they bankrupt the country.
How the heck did a company in the creative space end up in hands of these people.
Blackrock have been over here in the UK and asset stripped loads of companies, selling them on to management buyouts just before they go bust.
135
« on: June 03, 2020, 16:11 »
Here is some more information on this man:-
Stan Pavlovsky joined Shutterstock in April 2019 from Meredith. At Meredith, he was the President and EVP, leading world-class brands such as People, Allrecipes, Better Homes and Garden, Eating Well, Martha Stewart Living, Parents, and Shape to reach over 140M million unique visitors every month.
Stan Pavlovsky started his career as a Financial Analyst with Microsoft. At Microsoft, Stan would provide financial analysis for revenue, marketing, and product feature planning helping business teams to identify revenue opportunities and to provide business strategies to and for senior management including the CFO.
Jon Oringer wrote about him, Stan has the ideal skill-set and mind-set to take our business to the next level and it is all of these qualities that gave us the confidence to elevate him to COO, President, and now CEO.
Basically he is a Accountant, a Suit, someone who has no imagination.
Oringer, would have known what was about to happen and probably helped plan this whole thing, he bought Pavlovsky in to do the dirty work and F. over everyone on commissions, or to put another way, this guy is the man with the pistol who is taking our money and Oringer is the fence.
136
« on: June 03, 2020, 08:38 »
Dentist imagery will become out of date, within five years, all industries move on, when you are dealing with clients in the dentistry or medical sectors the demand that the imagery is up to date.
You can continue to argue against every completely random example I picked to get a point across, it's not changing anything. Just pick an example yourself and think about whether you think it will make a difference to customers and Shuttesrtock whether they have 100.000 images of that topic in their database or "just" 50.000. images.
You are not reading my entire post, or not taking onboard the overall picture, Shutterstock is finished, their content will become dated and stale. It doesn't matter how many pictures you have of whatever, if they all look pre-2020, designers won't buy them, design and photo styles come and go. Within 5 years Shutterstock will look very dated, with old content. All the talent will be on other sites, no serious photographer in their right mind will be uploading to them in the Western World. Designers who buy the pictures are going to change to other sites, not just because the content will be dated, but also because they are generally ethical minded.
137
« on: June 03, 2020, 06:58 »
This maybe so for the likes of Sunflowers, the real talent and creative work will be deleted and the content that remains will become stale.
The buyers are usually designers and they are discerning in what they choose.
Sunflowers maybe OK for the public but designers always want more and are generally willing to pay a premium to get what they want.
Shutterstock without buyers are dead in the water.
I just named sunflowers as en extreme example, because that's certainly an oversaturated topic. (over 770.000 search results on SS)
But I am sure it can be applied to everything, even if it is on a smaller sale.
Take a more specific topic, let's say "Woman sitting on chair at dentist". That still gives me over 27.000 results. Do customers need a selection of 27.000 such photos? Certainly just as little as 1000 of these would be enough to let a customer find something he needs, probably even just 100.
Of course a lot of quality photographers who have to pay for high end gear, models, studios, etc. might leave. But even if half of them leave Shutterstock, they are still left with 13.500 photos of women sitting in chairs at dentists. It's hard to imagine that a customer looking for a photo of a woman at a dentist can't find a suitable image with 13.500 images to pick from.
I wish it was different, but I am afraid a lot of contributors here overestimate how much Shutterstock cares about deactivated photos or accounts.
Dentist imagery will become out of date, within five years, all industries move on, when you are dealing with clients in the dentistry or medical sectors the demand that the imagery is up to date. This scenario applies across the board of all professions. As a designer I can tell you that when I search for imagery I am looking for the best content and will not accept second rate pictures, in fact I will go to extreme lengths to make sure I get them. Shutterstock simply do not understand what they are dealing with, there main contracts will be with bean counters in large agencies, but in the studio's of those companies the art directors and designers will put pressure on them to move, when they can't get the content they need. Smaller advertising and design agencies will just move there buying, not because of the content, but because of the ethics, most designers are ethically minded. This leaves the large Corporations who simply don't care, but over time, maybe as long as five years, they will move because the lead and pressure would have been set in place by the add and design agencies, some of these people will cross migrate to in house design departments, bringing this thinking with them. Shutterstock is finished, it will take about five years, as they turn from the shiny out of town Shopping Mall that had everything, to a run down and out of date place with a lack of great content. The thing with all shopping Malls is they have lead retailers, without these they are nothing and as the talent is now walking this is exactly what is happening to Shutterstock.
138
« on: June 03, 2020, 06:05 »
Just a little remark - on the positive side, this time:
In our German speaking forums, someone's started jotting down the total amount of images available on Shutterstock at a given time. (You get the data in real time, if you use the search box without entering a keyword.)
Between yesterday in the morning (MET) and now (1:52 am) - so, a little more than 12 hours - almost 140,000 images have been deleted or disabled. Not (yet) enough to hurt them, but sure for a clear signal in their direction. 
And you can add that on a normal day it should be rising by about 200.000. Let's say, by 100.000 in half a day.
It has been around 170.000 images that have been deactivated or deleted between yesterday and today, if my math is correctly, but despite people deleting/deactivating images, there are still more images added daily than deleted.
I seriously doubt that Shutterstock cares. The number has been growing way too fast anyways and you could tell from the yearly sales reports that it has no real influence on SS's income and contributors' earnings. More images in the database simply does not mean more customers/sales. Customers still buy the images they need and whether they have a selection of 1000 images of sunflowers or 10.000 images to pick from makes no difference to them. They'll find one suitable among 1000 already, they don't need a selection of 10.000 and a bigger selection won't make them buy more sunflower images if one is all they need.
That's why I feel like, as long as the overall number of images is still going up, SS will not really care. They might even welcome the slower growth. The recent changes in the similar image rules and, at least what I hear from other contributors, overall more stricter reviews, make it seem like gaining as many new images as possible is not their prefered strategy anymore.
This maybe so for the likes of Sunflowers, the real talent and creative work will be deleted and the content that remains will become stale. The buyers are usually designers and they are discerning in what they choose. Sunflowers maybe OK for the public but designers always want more and are generally willing to pay a premium to get what they want. Shutterstock without buyers are dead in the water.
139
« on: June 02, 2020, 16:32 »
By the end of the year, shutterstock will be on it's knees.
Thousands of Portfolio's are being deleted at this moment along with thousands being disabled, this along with no new sign up's, who is going to work for 10c, means they are going to go crashing out of the market.
Anyone in this market is going to be bad mouthing them to every client they have, along with recommending every other Agency but them.
As a old saying goes, Money Talks, Talent Walks, I know this means something different, but in a convoluted way it sums up what is happening to them.
140
« on: June 02, 2020, 16:22 »
Adobe will within the next couple of years dominate the micro stock market, they along with a handful of others will be the only ones with new content.
141
« on: June 01, 2020, 15:08 »
Just sold my first 10 cent image. I will most likely delete my videos in a month. I will wait several months on images, but I suspect this will be my last year with SS. Not angry, don't expect them to change their business model. Now that it doesn't work for me, I will simply move on to something different and more lucrative. Not the first time I had to pivot because a company changed direction, wont be the last.
This is true, as Shutterstock are about to find out their revenue's will be going down over the next couple of years as the talent moves out. I think the first to go down hill will be the video side of the site, this takes a lot of time, image editing and the right equipment to produce this content.
142
« on: May 28, 2020, 08:57 »
I keep getting emails from them and I logged into a account that I set up in 2012, and much to my surprise I have $ 4.57, can't find any images so I must have deleted them.
But I do keep getting emails, does anyone ever get any sales on this site?
As I am considering uploading.
143
« on: May 26, 2020, 14:13 »
ShutterStock are finished as a site, anyone who has any sense of their own worth is going to leave them.
The reality is they won't find this out for a couple of years, as the buyers move elsewhere.
144
« on: May 11, 2020, 08:50 »
I have been trying to login to my account and I am being refused, including trying to reset the password by sending a email for a new one and having the same problem with DeepMeta. Is anyone else having a problem with istock/Getty? 
145
« on: May 05, 2020, 04:26 »
No idea, can't login to my account.
146
« on: April 21, 2020, 11:37 »
Here is the information from their Site:-ATTENTION Cutcaster Buyers and Sellers - Cutcaster is Closing
A note from Cutcaster founder John Griffin: We started Cutcaster nearly 12 years ago to help connect photo buyers and sellers, and it has been an honor to see the marketplace grow over that time. Regrettably, we are now planning to close Cutcaster on Sat. April 25, 2020. If you buy or sell images on Cutcaster, please see the following instructions regarding credits and payouts.
Buyers: If you have any remaining credits with Cutcaster, please use them before 11:59 p.m. PT on Sat. April 25, 2020. Credits remaining in any Cutcaster account after Sat. April 25, 2020 will be forfeited.
Sellers: If you have more than $5 in earnings in your account, please request a payout before 11:59 p.m. PT on Sat. April 25, 2020. To request a payout, log in to your account, and choose Earnings from the Profile menu in the upper-right corner of the window. Click Request Payout and follow the onscreen instructions.
All existing images in the Cutcaster library will be removed from the public site after Sat. April 25, 2020. If you would like to delete your images earlier, please let us know by emailing [email protected].
I upload to them years ago as they looked like a good site at the time, unfortunately they don't seem to have made it. Not a good day, I thought they maybe able to give some of the larger sites a run for their money.
147
« on: February 21, 2020, 16:56 »
"On Demand" photo prices are $49 for 5 photos at Shutterstock and $49 for 10 photos at Depositphotos. It's 1/2.
High prices have brought shutterstock down. 
It's easy to undercut on price, anyone can sell their work cheaply, this is not the way forward, a race to the bottom is of no value to contributors. Quality as they say always sells and is the only way forward and part of this is to increase the commission to contributors as Adobe done. Shutterstock should do the same, as overall this encourages contributors to produce better work. Ten years from now, Getty which is a prime example of a price cutter is going to be struggling to have quality content. Shutterstock's next move should be to increase their prices and the commission rate to contributors, the basic download commission should be around 45 cents.
148
« on: February 19, 2020, 07:58 »
The problem with iStock or as we should call them Getty, is that they have over the years cut and cut the commission rates to fill their own and pockets.
When you receive $69 for a $460 sale this is downright criminal, it's not the amount of sales that count it is the value.
Over here in the UK in the last 10 years we have had Government action against the Banks to repay money that they took from customers for unfair charges called PPI (Payment protection insurance) this equated to Billions being paid back to British consumers.
Personally I think that at some stage Getty could well end up on racketeering charges either in the UK or the EU with contributors being able to claim back money, for short changing them.
If this happens they need to go after the beneficiary's of this, the Shareholders.
I for one am making it my aim this year to end my association with this Criminal Enterprise.
149
« on: February 11, 2020, 14:18 »
The Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere, who is a right wing tax avoider, his father supported Adolf Hitler before the Second World War and his son who now owns the Daily Mail is well known to hold his fathers views.
In the UK he has Non-dom status, which means he is living and working in the UK, without paying all the tax he should, it is a basically a tax dodge status that he has agreed with the Inland Revenue, goodness knows how much this has cost the British Public over the years in lost revenue, probably in the Billions.
Non of this is good news for Alamy contributers, as you can see from the character of the man, in no time at all he will be doing a Getty on them.
150
« on: January 30, 2020, 07:12 »
Having contributed to 123RF for 10 years, they have consistently cut the commission rates, while at the same time proclaiming that sales will go up, this of course is absolute rubbish.
In the last couple of years my sales have been going one way and that is down, as well as getting 4 or 5 returns sales every month, no other site does this.
Have the buyers on this site been getting a rough deal as well and will we about to see the collapse of 123RF.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
