Hello,

Obviously, the broad point across the entire thread was to increase your quantity of customer downloads, which increases your income and revenue.  When I'm referring to success, I'm directly relating that to your portfolio performance in terms of getting you the highest possible financial returns.

Best,

Scott

Hello,

I usually skip the opinion threads, but on this topic, I think it's very important to look at the big picture.   I started in photography as a teenage commercial studio assistant in the late 1980s, eventually working at a wire service who served international newspapers and broadcasters.  At that time, you were looking at a few thousand newspapers, major magazines, book publishers and broadcast outlets as the primary consumers of photography. 

Fast-forward to today. If you take Shutterstock as an example, we have nearly 1 million customers on Shutterstock.com, with an audience of an additional 1 million active advertisers on Facebook (backed by an additional 18 million businesses on the FB platform). That's just one partnership.  There have been over 400 million paid image licenses.  Footage licensing (which is well within the reach of any photographer) is rapidly growing.  We're now paying royalties of $120 or more for image licenses. 

If you're shooting a business handshake, then yes - the market for that image has likely diminished as more artists come to the platform.  But we go into client meetings every day with publishers, brands, etc..., who tell us they need more images and can't find XYZ.   For example, a local publisher will tell you - "it's great, you've got images of children. But in our city, kids wear white and green school uniforms.  There's none of that.  And you've got real estate images.  But who in our country has a stereotypical American suburban house?  There's none of that around here.  And our city has 100 different types of regional ethnic cuisine.  We need more images."   Extrapolate that out to the many millions of searches we get, and there are exponential combinations of topics and concepts still to fulfill as new markets emerge and mature markets look for more images and increased variety.

We have to do a better job of educating you on the gaps, but we've started through things like the ShutterstockReq Twitter feed.

One thing that has amazed me about Offset, for example, is how -- after 20 years of major talented and smart players in stock -- so many customers are excited about and embracing the collection.  It's just proof that there's still much opportunity to provide something new and unique if you listen to them carefully and focus on the needs of the customer (instead of focusing on other artists or the competition).

Call me biased,   but I think it's a **very** exciting time in the industry.  It's very hard to be able to see the big picture when you're in the middle of a period of change, but between the technology choices, distribution and consumption platforms, learning platforms, crowdfunding, easy access to social media advertising, access to a global customer base, etc...  --- there's tremendous opportunity to be entrepreneurial and successful. 

I think the hardest thing is to break out of old habits, to focus on the customer, and to be very forward-looking on rapidly emerging trends.  But the customer audience and demand is there.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi Herg,

If you're confused about the reason for the rejection, you should write into Support at [email protected]. They'll either reverse the rejection if it was an error, or if you ask for an explanation - they should be able to provide some guidance on the issue.

We are coming out with more educational material on releases through the blog and also through some upcoming eBooks (currently being translated into multiple languages).

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hey guys,

Sorry for the confusion - it looks like the email went to a broader group than intended...looking into this.

Thanks,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hello,

Anyone who has had a review of a very large file that was "tack sharp" (or in their estimation, very sharp) should send a link to the original images or the batch number to the support team at [email protected].  That creates a ticket in our system which can be tracked and resolved.  If it's been more than a round or two and you're not getting a satisfactory response, you can also escalate to me.  If a specific review was reversed, but then you experienced the issue a second time, please take the same approach.

The truth is that many complaints we see were legitimate rejections where the focus point was off (i.e., the image is back-focused) or there's motion blur, etc...   However, if there's a problem with the review process, a specific review or a specific reviewer, we want to know about it so that we can make it right.  With increased resolution, varying camera types, lenses of different quality, different post-processing methods, displays, etc..., the best way to do that is to see the original images.   If there's a policy or process improvement to make, we'll make it.


Thanks!

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock 

Hi Tror,

Thanks for your feedback.  I think it's important to think about Shutterstock's business outside of just subscriptions.  The reality is that images are sold under many different price points and many different products, and that our enterprise business is growing daily on a global basis.   There are nearly 1 million customers at Shutterstock (and more through our Facebook integration, which has 1 million active advertisers).   It's not an "either-or" scenario.  At our service, the same image that sells to a small local business in Utah under the subscription model can sell for hundreds of dollars to an ad agency in Germany, the UK or Japan.   When you're putting quality images into the collection, you're making them available for every kind of purchase opportunity, unless you've specifically opted out of some.

The other thing to keep in mind is that our products grow and mature every single day.  As a tech company, we're constantly testing and deploying small iterations of new features. A few years ago, $50 - $120 royalties didn't exist at the scale that they do now.  Many features didn't exist, or were different.  If you do something against our recommendations today because you're making future assumptions about who the customers are, what features are available, etc., then you're doing yourself a disservice. 

For example, our search algorithms focus on image performance and complex analyses of large amounts of behavioral data.  Over time, your images build up histories of customer behavior.  Those are very important assets for you. 

Avoid bad advice and chances that you may want to "change" an image in the future to take advantage of emerging opportunities.  You might lose an important thing of value -- customer data -- that you earn on a hourly basis over the course of years. 

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hello,

If you sent a note to our "submit" support address, you should hear back within 1-2 business days.  If you didn't get any response, I would try again, in case it went into a spam folder.  I can check with the team on the current status of the escalation queue, but they've been pretty fast. 

If you don't receive a response after multiple email attempts, PM me (not the best first path, since the submit email address creates a ticket in our system and goes directly to the right people). 

Best,

Scott

Hi All,

IMO what you need is some sort of formal appeals process, possibly limited to a certain number a month, or to contributors with a certain number of sales to prevent the process from being overwhelmed by things that really are junk. That sort of process would help you calibrate reviewers and improve the quality of reviews. In the long run that will benefit Shutterstock as much as it will contributors.

Hi Jo Ann,

Agreed. Anyone is invited to disagree with a review determination.  If they're right -- or the case was borderline -- we will reverse the reviewer's decision.  As long as that process is not abused, it's important part of the feedback process for us.  We "review our reviewers" and go through regular training with them, but it's helpful for us to determine when issues occur so we can give feedback to the reviewers themselves.

There are three possibilities in these situations:

- The images are clearly out of focus or back-focused when viewed at 100%.
- The images are slightly soft due to motion, lens choice, equipment, etc., but we'll give the nod to the contributor in a second review (we do ask our reviewers to consider whether softness is due to equipment limitations or poor technique). 
- The images were sharp and the reviewer made the wrong determination.

We appreciate that it takes time to produce images and our goal is to have "0" issues across the millions of images that we review.  If you feel the review was incorrect, it's important to let us know, and please write in.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hello,

If something seems abnormal, please email [email protected] so the team can look into it.

Thanks,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi guys,

Thanks for your patience.

Shutterstock is currently experiencing a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack and we are working to resolve the issue as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Hi Jim,

I know that you also put this question to the team.   Feel free to correspond with me directly on the topic.  I've spoken about our licenses and comps in the forums in the past. 

First, the number of "paid downloads" does not include comps. 

Here's a paraphrased version of my prior explanation in the forums on the topic of comps and preview images:

Unwatermarked comps are common in stock image licensing. Traditionally, buyers who were purchasing an RM or RF image would request a �comp� or preview image for layout and evaluation purposes because of high per-image costs and the direct relationship between the license fee and actual usage. This has been a common practice at leading stock agencies, primarily because advertising agencies and major publishers continue to work this way.  Comps do not include a usage license.

When Shutterstock provides unwatermarked comp images, they are only provided to trusted �large accounts� that pay higher prices than other Shutterstock customers. We do track comp usage and comps are not offered through the subscription model. As a result, contributors receive higher royalties when a customer licenses an image for usage; the pricing of images licensed to these customers can be in the hundreds of dollars. Contributors receive a corresponding royalty based on their earnings tier (up to $120 or more per download).
 

Best,

Scott

But I agree that an editorial caption should be strictly accurate and impartial. I am surprised that captions including words like "regime" and "dictatorship" have got past the bureau chief or equivalent. Unless Shutterstock is taking sides.

Hi Bunhill,

From the images I saw, I believe "dictatorship" was put in the original captions in quotes to indicate that the protesters are protesting against what they (the protesters) were calling a "dictatorship."  It's a good catch and important for impartiality, but there's no editorial stance applied by Shutterstock.

Best,

Scott

Hello,

Thanks all.   In terms of editorial images - yes, there is a demand for news and we do sell editorial images and video.  As mentioned on the earnings call, we now have close to 1 million customers of all types, which includes large media and publishing companies.   While we're largely known for commercial images, illustrations, vectors, etc..., those customers are often excited to hear about our editorial coverage.   While we've often focused on credentialed events and our "On the Red Carpet" program -- with 55,000 contributors around the world -- there's fairly widespread coverage for documentary images of local and global interest.  We'd like to do a better job of highlighting the great work that's being done. 

This has always been true for photojournalism, but "evergreen" subjects tend to be most popular over time - for example, a portrait of President Obama might get downloaded over and over because customers are looking to illustrate editorial stories on that subject on a fairly routine basis. 

We also just launched "illustrative editorial" photos. 

The images to that category are already getting lots of downloads, because it's a content type that hasn't existed that fills an existing demand among a large customer audience.

One of the most misleading statements that I see in the forums and in the industry is that "it's all been done" or that "there's no opportunity anymore."   There's nothing that could be further from the truth.  We see millions of searches; our customer base is growing and expanding (nearly 1 million Shutterstock customers backed by relationships such as Facebook, which has 1 million active advertisers).  Customers needs change over time (for example - more customers are using video) and we're acquiring new customers in different areas of the world.

Any time we've seen contributors add content to the collection that fills a gap -- it doesn't matter if it's high-impact photojournalism, illustrative editorial, local families, a certain quality level, "authenticity" that you see in Offset, etc..., it will serve a need among a very large audience of nearly 1 million buyers.  The marketplace and demand is constantly evolving.   

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock