|
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 ... 11
26
« on: January 25, 2022, 15:41 »
BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.
I don't want to get so deeply into what for me is a rather strange discussion.
Although January was, as expected, not so great, Shutterstock's revenues at least compensate for the increased energy prices. I really can't see that this agency is driving me into poverty.
AND in five years time . . . . . You will have realised to late, it's simple, just like the thousands of contributors on Shutterstock's Forum who have stopped uploading. Personally I'm just leaving my Portfolio on SS as I have put thousands of hours and over ten years into it, I made Level 1 in eight days, I really don't care about the money and have never been governed by it. If you want to wast your time . . . carry on uploading . . . Ha, Ha, Ha
27
« on: January 25, 2022, 15:11 »
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples 
But who likes it nice and simple  . "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living" 
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
just more whinging! your claims of SS criminality are nonsense (and, as usual, w no actual evidence back up your ludicrous claims)
put it in perspective! SS antics are insignificant compared to real world problems.
work w SS or not, but eternal bitching won't change anything.
...
The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone.
EVERYBODY signed up for this thru the TOS!!! RYFM
What is needed in the Western World is a law that makes these type of companies responsible to all Stake Holders on an equal basis, when a company is sold, takes on debt, commission rates or terms and condition changes, basically all contributors having a equal vote at the shareholders annual meeting.
that's not the way capitalism works - you need to review economics 101. how many shares of SS do you own? contributors are not shareholders & most companies have a small group who control company decisions. the only way your 'idea' would work would be you controlled more shares than the owners
I stand by my claim that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are nothing more than common criminals dressed up in suits and working in offices, they are the unacceptable face of capitalism.
so, you admit you have absolutely no evidence to back up this silly claim. what is the crime??
Everybody signed up because they had to, in effect it was coercion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - NOTE how I have out done you with more exclamation marks! I could go on but in reality if you want to continue to be taken advantage of, ripped off and generally walked all over, while Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsk take your cash, carry on uploading!!!!!!!!!!!!! AS AN ASIDE, I am a great believer in capitalism and a free market economy, BUT and here is the BUT, like all systems, it needs reforms and updates as time ticks by; I see legislation that empowers people as a way forward for a better and more progress society. This proposal of a Stake Holders Law is a way of helping people to realise their efforts and taming the excesses of capitalism. This is nothing new, working conditions and wage rises down the centuries have only been achieved by legislation and collective action, otherwise here in the UK, we would still have the same rights (which would be none) as when we had the seventh century mill owners claiming poverty as to why they were cutting the wages of the workers, while living in palatial mansions. BUT, be my guest, continue to upload and live in poverty.
28
« on: January 25, 2022, 10:47 »
If a January reset is equitable and improves motivation think how much better one every month would be.
This has to be the most ridiculous quote of the year, and it is only January.
I'm pretty sure that pancaketom was being sarcastic here.
Yes, I agree with you.
29
« on: January 25, 2022, 07:04 »
If a January reset is equitable and improves motivation think how much better one every month would be.
This has to be the most ridiculous quote of the year, and it is only January.
30
« on: January 25, 2022, 07:00 »
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples
But who likes it nice and simple . "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living"
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them.
Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
just more whinging! your claims of SS criminality are nonsense (and, as usual, w no actual evidence back up your ludicrous claims)
put it in perspective! SS antics are insignificant compared to real world problems.
work w SS or not, but eternal bitching won't change anything.
Ha, Ha, Ha, It's not whinging or bitching, it's not even business, shutterstock's original business model was a win, win, they gave a reasonable return, for a low unit sale price but with a large amount of downloads. This was the original contributor contract, now we have a win, lose, business model. They are taking not only a bigger slice of the pie, they are taking all the pie and leaving just a few crumbs. The criminality comes from their behaviour, nobody signed up to a change with this new contract, in effect it was forced on everyone. What is needed in the Western World is a law that makes these type of companies responsible to all Stake Holders on an equal basis, when a company is sold, takes on debt, commission rates or terms and condition changes, basically all contributors having a equal vote at the shareholders annual meeting. As for my earlier point about it's not business; as time goes on Shutterstock will lose revenue as the talent will walk, anyone who has half a brain can see that it isn't in their financial interest to upload to this site, YOU and EVERYONE ELSE has to ask themselves, what will be there next financial move and lets face it, this is a one way street. I stand by my claim that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are nothing more than common criminals dressed up in suits and working in offices, they are the unacceptable face of capitalism. Personally, I don't give my talent away for FREE, but, you obviously believe that YOU are quite happy to do this or you have no talent, either way it's your lose.
31
« on: January 24, 2022, 18:09 »
You should therefore also look at, for example, housing costs, health care costs, rent subsidy for low wages, costs of food, accrual pension, .....
It's called "cost of living". That's easier then summing up all kinds of examples
But who likes it nice and simple . "rent subsidy for low wages" and "accrual pension" not belong to "cost of living"
True and then again Thijs had a valid point. No use in comparing income in $ between countries when you do not take into account the cost of living.
US federal minimum wage is $7.25 & only a few states are moving to $15/hr , mostly bi-coastal states that tend Democratic (WA is $14.49, Ca $14)
$15 minimum wage is about $30K annual (often w no vacation & no health care from employer), and 2/3 of minimum wage workers do not have 40hr workweeks. and, even at $15, it's still not a livable wage.
https://www.minimum-wage.org/wage-by-state
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/21/15-minimum-wage-wont-cover-living-costs-for-many-americans.html
WHO CARES about the minimum wage or anything else that comes as an excuse, this is all BS, SHUTTERSTOCK are ripping off the talent, and have used criminal minded thinking to shaft everyone who uploads to them. Get a grip, this is not about how much you pay here or their, it's about Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky operating a scam.
32
« on: January 24, 2022, 12:00 »
The January reset should be called, 'How to shaft photographers in January'.
33
« on: January 23, 2022, 17:16 »
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Just like with every other company in the world?
UTTER RUBBISH, crooks are crooks, not all companies are run like the mafia.
34
« on: January 23, 2022, 12:29 »
The most important point to remember with Shutterstock is that Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are ripping you off.
Whatever you are making, they are stealing a vast amount more than you are getting in cash.
Feeding the site with images, is only feeding these crooks and their shareholders.
35
« on: January 19, 2022, 10:19 »
Way in the past I used to regularly get $25.00 downloads every month along with $50 - 75 every now and then, I seem to remember getting $150 a few times, these days 10c seems to be the norm.
I would lay money on high priced downloads being on there way out, even now Pavlovsky, deep in the dungeons of the Empire State Building is masterminding his latest attack on the talent.
I suspect he will end up charging the contributors to have a portfolio on the site, all part of the continuing spiral of ever decreasing shareholder returns, forcing him to steal more cash from the talent.
36
« on: January 05, 2022, 19:26 »
Another Agency that has taken the corporate shareholder greed route, now owned by PA Media, better known as the Daily Mail, wholly owned by Viscount Rothermere, a notorious family of tax avoiders, they have never paid tax in the UK, his father was a supporter of Adolf Hitler, I write this so you know the type of people who are sharfting you.
Alamy used to give it's profits to charity, they used to be a honourable agency.
37
« on: January 03, 2022, 12:58 »
I may be the anomaly, but the reality for 99% of contributors to SS is that they earn money from being on SS... and 100% of those that aren't on SS, don't earn money from SS.
If you think that there's been some kind of, or will be some kind of, mass exodus of buyers from SS due to a relatively small percentage of contributors leaving (or that lost earnings from SS will automatically be made up elsewhere), then you might be the one who is being naive. Sure, my earnings might dwindle over time... they might at any agency, and that can be reviewed on an ongoing basis, but in the meantime I'm earning money from the time I'm spending uploading, so nothing will come back to bite me. And they're not dwindling now... I made a decent amount more last year then I did the year before.
And if you think my post was 'talking up' SS then... well, that's just strange.
I don't think you are an anomaly and I agree with your post.
I don't particularly care about SS, Adobe or any of the others. I use SS because it serves my purpose and when it stops serving that purpose I will move on.
The reality is that I still sell more on SS than any other site. I also made more in 2021 than I did in 2020. Not much more - 3.38% - but still more. Adobe did well for me last year too although still not as well as SS.
In addition, the absolute number of downloads I got at SS increased last year and at a greater rate than I added to my portfolio. So that suggests that the buyers haven't gone away.
I also agree. I am less than happy with the Shutterstock levels, but I still sell a lot there, and certainly can't afford to walk away and lose a good chunk of my income.
My Shutterstock downloads were slightly reduced in 2021, but I expected that with a portfolio of mainly travel and wildlife. Income there was down by a higher margin, but the loss was more than covered by a good increase in income at Adobe an Istock, plus a couple of others. However, I think that was mostly to do with organic growth, rather than buyers jumping ship.
That said, I certainly know of a couple of companies that have not renewed subscriptions in recent months, but they also deal with travel subjects, (travel agents/websites), so that may be more to do with market conditions than anything else. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market post-pandemic.
Somehow the above replys are missing the point, I believe that Shutterstocks business model of scamming the contributors will lead to their downfall. As I keep saying, its not about now and how much your portfolio is making at the moment, which I bet is far less than three years ago. Its about the talent not uploading, sure your going to get the odd person who will continue too, but overall the bigger picture is, the majority of creative people are not going to be uploading and this will in time have an impact, I predict (and it is the Season for predicting) that five years from now Shutterstock will be a mere shadow of what it was five years ago. Maybe it will even go bust, Agencies and Designers are not going to be buying from a company that shafts their contributors. Cutting the commission rates is a double whammy for Shutterstock, designers, art directors and image buyers, the people who buy from them will get to know that the commission rate has been cut and simply not renew their contracts, this along with the talent not uploading new work, is really the death nail for them, and it will be a slow death, any independent shareholder should seriously think about getting out as soon as they can.
38
« on: January 03, 2022, 07:47 »
Anyone who is still uploading to help these two is insane.
I completely agree, anyone who is still uploading to help these two might very well be insane. But you'll find that the majority of people are still uploading to help themselves (rather than those two)... which is considerably less insane. Them getting rich is only a side effect of something I do that benefits me, it's not why I do it.
This is just a naive comment; looking at your portfolio you are the exception to the vast majority of contributors and thus have a vested interest in talking Shutterstock up. In fact I would say, like in all situations you are an anomaly, a deviation from the norm, in any given situation you always get this, the reality for 99% of Shutterstock contributors is very different. The vast majority of people still uploading have little to contribute, the real talent has moved on, in the long term SS will wither and decay, how long this takes is anyones guess, three, maybe five years, whatever it is finished, as those who buy cant find decent images move on to other sites. As for the shareholders, in time this business model will show that it isnt compatible with the creative industries, Getty who are slightly ahead in this model, are running out of money. Your short-sightedness in wasting your time uploading to them will come back to bite you, as SS is a subscription site the amount of buyers will dwindle, along with your sales.
39
« on: January 01, 2022, 15:14 »
I care very much about RPD, as I would rather that those 10000 downloads earned me $10,000 rather than $5000.
And I care very much about my earnings, because I would rather have 1000 hours of my work earn me $10,000 than $5000. That's my priority.
I want to work and get paid for my work and pay my rent and food and as long as the agencies are paying me the same, or as it has been so far, even more for my work each year, that's good enough for me.
And I didn't post my stats to impress anyone. I just wanted to show that not everything is gloom and doom and going downhills in microstock bussiness. Everyone is so negative these days. It's not all only bad, even agencies like SS or iSTock. But you have to put some work into it, not stop submitting content to Shutterstock and then complain that your earnings are declining. I see that quite often and maybe that has something to do with people's obsession with RPD - The expection that "images uploaded in the past" should earn your money for you past work, not your continouse work.
I don't think continuing this discussion will lead anywhere, we obviously have different priorities. As long as you are happy with your business model and I am happy with mine, everything is fine.
This is just insane, how much are you proposing that Oringer and Pavlovsk sell your work for, would you be happy with 1c a download.
40
« on: January 01, 2022, 15:10 »
However anyone looks at the arrangement that Shutterstock has implemented, IT IS A COLD HEARTED SCAM perpetrated by Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsk, to steal money from the talent.
These two are nothing more than low life criminals pertaining to be running a business.
Anyone who is still uploading to help these two is insane.
The way forward in the Western World is a change in the law for companies like this, there should be a 'Stakeholders Law' which basically gives all the contributors a equal vote on what happens to the money.
41
« on: December 31, 2021, 05:58 »
Ten sales today in China for 15c, all vectors, when I signed up to sell vectors on this site they assured me that they would sell for $30.00 each.
They have over the last five or so years renaged on this contract, dropping the price over and over again, tell they have reached rock bottom of 15c.
Alamy used to give it's profits to Charity, but since it has sold it's soul to PA Media Group (which really is the Daily Mail newspaper, owned by Viscount Rothermere a notorious tax avoiding family, he and his father have never paid any tax in the UK, his father was a well known supporter of Adolf Hitler). I write this, so you know the type of people and the context of the situation.
What is basically going on is exploitation, personally I'm never uploading to them again.
The Microstock market is a money grab by the wealthy, one has to ask one self, don't these people have enough already?
I'm moving in to different creative markets and leaving Microstock behind, after 12 years of designing, illustrating and photographing along with thousands of hours keywording and uploading, I will just leave my portfolios to run their course and then when they stop making money, I will delete them, with the exception of Adobe.
Anyone who is sane will do the same.
42
« on: December 28, 2021, 09:18 »
Whatever your getting on Shutterstock, just remember, Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky are getting at least ten times the amount you get paid.
The whole site is run by a bunch of criminals, who have suckered the talent in and are now ripping them off.
43
« on: December 22, 2021, 05:53 »
Jon Oringer hired Stan Pavlovsky as the CEO last year as the front man to run a hatchet job on the contributors, as we all know his 'compensation model' is all about increasing profits for the company off the backs of the creative contributors.
The way forward in the Western World is a change in the law for companies like this, there should be a 'Stakeholders Law' which basically gives all the contributors a equal vote, as in a democracy.
With modern technology this would be just a click of a button, Yes or No to the new terms that this type of company would be seeking to implement. Making them think twice before introducing exploitative terms and condition changes.
44
« on: December 20, 2021, 06:52 »
Enveto manipulate their search engine algorithm to favour their exclusive contributors only.
I sometimes buy on this site, the search engine is completely rubbish, it more often than not throws up totally irrelevant content.
I used to have a small photographic portfolio on Enveto, which was around twenty photos, until they deemed it not worthy of their standards, which I have to say, there are stacks of photos that are completely rubbish compared with the same location pictures I had.
I also have a small portfolio of graphics on their site, but since they removed my photo portfolio, I very rarely get a payout, it used to be just about every month, many of the pictures used to sell most months along with the graphics.
I became disillusioned not only with them removing my photos but with the reviewers rejection of my graphics, they seem to employe what I can only describe as low life nutters, who have some of the weirdest and childlike avatars you could imagine, in fact one of them looks psychotic and then when you check these people out, like looking at there portfolios, they are just have a few bits of rubbish.
Enveto has nothing to be proud of and as for transparency, which they say in their Impact Statement, this is just total rubbish, transparency in what?
No transparency in the rejection process and no transparency in their search engine, no transparency in removing photos that sell.
This is not helping the creative community so this Camgough chap is just wrong, perhaps he can explain how removing photos that sell every month, is helping the creative community.
45
« on: December 20, 2021, 06:09 »
Microstock will just get worse over the short term, commission rates will continue to be cut, maybe even stopped or put on hold as many of the sites will call it.
Shutterstock have shown the way on this with their January restart every year, I believe the overall outlook is very grim.
On the upside, in the long run, I believe that many countries, probably starting in Europe will look to bring in legislation to fairly compensate contributors, perhaps with a law that makes these companies responsible to all stake holders on a equal basis, when a company is sold, takes on debt, commission rates or terms and condition changes, basically all contributors having a equal vote at the shareholders annual meeting.
Perhaps they will bring in laws that state contributors/creatives are the ones who decide how much their work is charged out at, along with the commission rates.
As for the sites manipulating the search engines to favour the highest return for their shareholders this will also be outlawed.
As in the music industry, new technology has been used to scam artists in our sector of the creative arts, initially drawing in the talent and then after suckering them in, ripping them off.
The law and basic human rites are always slow to catch up with the 19th century mill owners, but it will come.
Or perhaps the advent of new technology will supersede microstock as we know it, like a search engine that seeks out individual websites of artist, photographers as a listing site, creating a market of independent online shops, which to a certain degree has been happening, maybe this will supersede microstock sites as we know them.
The other point I would make is, companies like Adobe have a vested interest in higher commission rates for us, as we buy their software, lets hope they hold their nerve, as many contributors (myself included) will only be uploading fresh content to them alone, ignoring SS/Getty and the other low hanging fruit, maybe 2022 could be a breakthrough year for Adobe.
I would suggest that if Adobe offered an exclusive contract, this could be a knock out blow for the likes of Getty and Shutterstock.
Personally, and I'm sure most people would like to see this, is Getty going bust and then wound down, with all the constituent parts sold off individually.
I also believe that there should be legislation on separating historic or commisioned photographs, art/illustation libraries from individual contributors portfolios on Microstock sites, companies should only be allowed to sell one or the other, or they should have the two types of content on totally separate sites.
Overall the outlook in the long term is better than in the short term.
46
« on: December 13, 2021, 11:41 »
https://www.geekwire.com/2021/getty-images-to-become-public-company-again-in-4-8b-spac-deal-building-on-seattle-tech-roots/
ETA. Quote from that link:
"The companys net loss improved to $39 million last year, from a loss of $51 million the year before. However, after adjusting that number for costs including $125 million in interest expense and a $59 million hit from foreign exchange rates, the company said its profits would have been $269 million last year.
Getty has been weighed down by debt since its 2012 acquisition by The Carlyle Group. About $576 million of the expected $1.38 billion in cash from the SPAC deal will go toward paying down existing debt."
This basically sums up what has been happening to Getty, the wealthy asset strippers moved in and loaded the company with debt, so that the people hiding behind the name Carlyle Group could extract future profits, at the expense of the contributors. The money paid to the Bankers in interest, is just a merry-go-round of debt, paid for by all the creative individuals in lower commissions, personally I would like to see a updated capitalist law in the Western World that empowers all the stake holders in these companies to have a vote on what happens to the money.
47
« on: December 11, 2021, 10:52 »
Lets hope this is the end of Getty, of course someone or company will come in and buy the smouldering wreck that is left.
Personally, the best way forward would be if all the parts were sold off, including the individual photo libraries they have.
The more it is broken up the better, as in my opinion this would create greater competition and the receivers would then get more money, because lets face it, the problem with them going bust will be, they will owe the contributors millions.
The other point I would make is, if they do go bust, how do we delete our Portfolio's, stopping them from being sold for a pittance, along with even more new, 'Good News' Terms and Conditions.
As for being worth $4.8 Billion, this surly is a joke.
48
« on: December 06, 2021, 09:52 »
I don't have a problem with having any photo's accepted at SS, as I haven't uploaded to this site since they cut the commission rates last year.
So no rejection at all in over a year.
49
« on: November 16, 2021, 12:09 »
This petition is about protecting people, from reading it, it is about consumer rights for both the sellers and purchasers.
I can't see anything wrong in that.
Just looked them up, they are based in New York, another problem company from the US. These people like SS, Getty, simply don't care about anything other than personal wealth.
American companies are far worse than European, just look at them all with there capricious greed, over here in the UK, US companies, especially Private Equity ones are renowned for asset stripping our companies and loading them with debt, this is not just in cash terms, but transferring our technology.
After they own the companies for a few years, they sell them on, just leaving a smouldering wreck, loaded with debt after nicking the pension fund as well.
Terrible people in the American Capitalist System, that seems to have turned in to a monster for many countries in the world, is not a force for good, it needs to be regulated to work fairly, and that is what the petition is about.
I'm surprised they didn't start the petition with 'Great News'.
50
« on: November 09, 2021, 13:42 »
Today sums up my whole month on SS pretty accurately: Had 50 sales today and still only a single digit earning amount. 
Single digit from 50 sales. I don't understand. What single digit? Like under $10 you mean? WOW
Yes, under $10 for 50 sales was what I meant. Sorry, English isn't my first language, maybe you don't say it like this in English.
In September I had 89 sales in a day on Shutterstock, but only made $9.12, they were all download from the same location and were all of the same subject. This is why I don't upload to them anymore.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
