|
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 - r2d2
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
1
« on: June 16, 2020, 01:03 »
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too
You ask for evidence but dont look for yourself: just go the Search page Its not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the added weekly was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).
I dont know what constitutes a tsunami in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?
what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks
from numbers displayed above:
June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
so 1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online
Where do you have this numbers? Try this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview#gid=0
2
« on: June 15, 2020, 11:12 »
Someone has highlighted an interesting aspect of slow fading of disabled images :
" I can't buy your image although I can see it. Screenshot attached - an error above of the image is shown...
But this means that the amount of images displayed in the database is far from correct.
It also means that there will be more frustrated buyers who want to buy an image but can't, which is certainly annoying.
Additional to that it means that the communication effort for the staff at the moment could be gigantic if more and more buyers have to contact support because they want to have exactly this image. Or the buyers are fed up at some point and buy somewhere else..."
interessting... The right time to ask the support stupid time consuming things...
3
« on: June 11, 2020, 16:31 »
But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.
Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?
Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.
Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.
But I know where it starts.
It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:
As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.
We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?
Sorry, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, I don't mean building a contributor-owned stock agency. In fact I think we'd never be able to compete against the market leaders.
What I'm talking about was: why should Shutterstock care that we all got 'united' on a website with a gallery to show off our work? It wouldn't give us any negotiating power. The images would just be sitting there, except they're not for sale, it's just a gallery. What message does that even spread? Nothing much. Clients would never see it, let alone care about our little coalition. We'd be as powerless as we are here, talking amongst ourselves.
For any power play we'd need to collectively pull our images, but we have no idea how many people would join that plan.
Suppose the coalition becomes a starting point for a small movement, even then we'd be lucky if we got 1% of all contributors on board. And that won't be enough.
So I ask you, what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake? Are we going to protest in front of the ShutterStock HQ, #ContributorLivesMatter?
No the real plan of the coalition is to steel pictures frome the contributors in the Fb-groupe and start a ultimate Wallpaper for free site with ten 1500px images. 
4
« on: June 02, 2020, 14:18 »
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play divide and rule.
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/
unbelievably... Please stand togehter and let us fight back! Shutdown for Shutterstock!
5
« on: June 02, 2020, 12:48 »
we should organise us in teams with special tasks. For Example: Twitter Team Facebook Team Google Ads Team Trustpilot Team Customer Phone Team We should give SS the best service that we can provide! 
6
« on: June 02, 2020, 07:47 »
If Adobe comes out with an attractive new exclusive program it is, probably game over for most agencies.
They will completly dominate, like ebay or amazon.
But...because we are all customers it will not be an unbalanced relationship.
hopefully that will happen! In the meantime we have to stop Shutterstock by making them unpopular for buyers and sharholders.
7
« on: June 02, 2020, 04:24 »
Since they're destroying our livelihood, let's take their online reputation down a few notches. I've complied a list of sites where you can file a report against company or leave a review.
Better Business Bureau
https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/new-york/profile/digital-media/shutterstock-inc-0121-81420
Review Websites
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/shutterstock.com
https://www.g2.com/products/shutterstock-shutterstock/reviews
Social Media
https://www.facebook.com/Shutterstock/
https://twitter.com/Shutterstock
https://www.youtube.com/user/ShutterstockInc/featured
I don't recommend using your real account for comments on social media. They may be able to trace it back to you and disable your account. But we shouldn't let up. Let's leave reviews on all these websites and hammer their social media.
Has the game changed from forcing Shutterstock to the negotiating table to damaging their reputation and bussiness and moving on to pastures new. I am all for moving on and hope the buyers follow, but many here would prefer the former choice. This kind of destruction instead of uniting us puts us in two camps.
I don't think it is splitting us at all. I am all for trying to get a better deal. But the sad fact is that they absolutely will not move on this without some serious pressure. This is that pressure.
They are a publicly traded company. They literally must, by law, act only in the interest of their shareholders. The only way they can/ will give us a better deal is if it is made clear that their share price will suffer if they don't. That is all there is too it.
and if you succeed with those tactics you will be killing your golden goose not that it bothers me, but others might want the goose to survive.
The goose is not golden anymore, more like rusty iron goose and it's ready for recycling.
This goose is ready for dinner cause she destroys our prices. SS is dead long live Adobe!
8
« on: June 01, 2020, 16:46 »
The way to hurt them is to contact design agencies and ask them to stop using shutterstock.
Tell every designer you know.
Also pressure companies that have partnerships with them.
These are a few that are listed on shutterstock website.
Great idea specially if you are a shareholder of one of these companies! It is a shame to work with Shitstock.
10
« on: June 01, 2020, 16:03 »
Yes perfect let us flood there online reputation! Every comment counts! PS: Don't forget to click there Goggle ads. One click double hit!
11
« on: June 01, 2020, 14:33 »
Me too 10cent. Hopefully SS will get bankrupt immediately. Maybe Adobe should buy SS an close them...
12
« on: May 28, 2020, 09:11 »
Good Idea, unity for SS shutdown.
Stand togehter and kick this greedy boys out of the Empire State Building...
13
« on: May 26, 2020, 12:52 »
, and helping us sink SS.
Lets do it: 1. Flooding there buyer support with emails and time wasting questions 2. Upload garbage to them 3. Click there Google ads away 4. Contact them via socialmedia other ideas welcome!
14
« on: May 26, 2020, 12:27 »
Look at there share price it going up today:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sake
hours?  If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them...
The company is worth almost $1.5b. You have no idea how little impact you'd have on them. By the time you'd found and clicked an advert they'd have probably made $5-10k in sales.
Just to go into more detail. If it was possible that you could click one of their ads once per second and it cost them exactly $1 per click, doing this 24/7 - 365, it would take 31 years to reach a $1b in clicks.
it only works if many contributor will do... But maybe we better should do nothing ...
15
« on: May 26, 2020, 11:53 »
Look at there share price it going up today:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sake
hours? If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them...
16
« on: May 26, 2020, 11:40 »
Look at there share price it going up today:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google. What will you do?
18
« on: June 18, 2019, 15:46 »
^^so true Let's demand 100% of our money and give Photocase a kiss of death . Question is what they have done with our money...
19
« on: June 18, 2019, 14:03 »
They are stealing money already earned (cutting it by 50%).
So not only cutting earnings of new sales but cutting MONEY ALREADY EARNED!
Is this legal?
i think it is ilegal!
20
« on: June 18, 2019, 13:59 »
that is so crazy... you can disagree than you will get 100% of your money. But then they will kick you out they say.
Win-win. 
of course... when everyone demands his money, they are soon broke! 
21
« on: June 18, 2019, 13:54 »
If they are going bankrupt and the liquidator decides that this is a way to keep them alive, then yes, that may be legal.
I have no idea what's going on with Photocase (never was a contributor), but in insolvency cases it is quite common that open liabilities are cut.
But there is no liquidator. You can contradict. The photographers should give up voluntarily. Anyone who contradicts will get 100% of his money!
22
« on: June 18, 2019, 13:49 »
that is so crazy... you can disagree than you will get 100% of your money. But then they will kick you out they say.
23
« on: February 19, 2019, 05:47 »
12.50% @Mat w.t.-f?
24
« on: July 20, 2018, 08:19 »
check out this:
thx!  But on the german 123rf.com site this dosent exist: https://de.123rf.com/
25
« on: July 20, 2018, 05:44 »
this is the explanation, which I got:
Regarding the Contributor Dashboard access, it has been relocated. You may now find it at the footer of the site, under the Header "123RF" > "123RF Contributors".
Except its not there
me too i can not find the contributor area...
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
