MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Video1977 on January 14, 2025, 09:08
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
-
Could they have reduced their marketing activities with regards to the coming merger?
That fresh licensing contracts are sold more on getty/istock than SS already?
That is what many have suspected is happening with pond5. Sales crashed since the takeover.
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
Not here. Slightly up for SS in regard to last year around this time. IS doing well also. It's Adobe who is lagging substantially for me.
-
Right now, on Shutterstock, I'm tracking to be ahead of January 2024 in terms of downloads. Revenue is down, partly because of the reset and partly because i haven't had any of the bigger sales yet.
So, no, I don't think they are manipulating the numbers.
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
Well... considering that they’ve changed the rules over and over, whenever they felt like it, broke trust with contributors and clients alike, operate like a greedy and stingy monopoly, yadda, yadda, yadda... it’s only logical for people to get a little bit sensitive about them, don’t you think?
LOL!
;D
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! ;D
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! ;D
Yeah I've noticed Shutterstock sometimes sell very high numbers of one or two of my images and those images are almost always at the top of every search result. When I contact Shutterstock support to ask them why my port is always being favored by the algorithm they just keep replying with generic unhelpful information. I am going to sue them over this!
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! ;D
No Pete, this is not manipulation. I have personally noticed that downloads increase when you dance naked around a public fountain in winter.
I'll submit photos later ;)
-
@RalfLiebhold:
Thanks for making me smile ;-)
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! ;D
No Pete, this is not manipulation. I have personally noticed that downloads increase when you dance naked around a public fountain in winter.
I'll submit photos later ;)
Please don't, just imagining that scene is scaring me. ;D
I generally sacrifice chickens, under a Full Moon. (others call it grilling BBQ Wings, but close enough?) I burn offerings to the all powerful and wise God of Microstock, Hephaestus, who is the Greek god of artisans, blacksmiths, carpenters, craftsmen, fire, metallurgy, metalworking, sculpture and volcanoes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cC5rX7wM/Ash-Head-Square-gif.gif)
Also covering other options, I celebrate Saturnalia, with a Scotch tasting festival, near the winter solstice.
Charms are also something that everyone should have and use, for good luck. The rabbits foot is extremely powerful for more illustration downloads.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pmkhL4W/Pete-Sorcerer-Gnome-Charms.jpg)
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
Lol - why do you call anything you personally don't agree with a "conspiracy theory", and on top of that - not offer ANY intelligent discourse, other than labelling it as such? It would be like someone trying to discredit anything & everything you say by simply saying "Oh, there is ralf again, the left wing nut, yada yada yada, spouting his left wing nut nonsense". ARE you a left wing nut - and do you prefer just name calling? OR... are you capable of intelligent discourse?
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! ;D
No Pete, this is not manipulation. I have personally noticed that downloads increase when you dance naked around a public fountain in winter.
I'll submit photos later ;)
Please don't, just imagining that scene is scaring me. ;D
I generally sacrifice chickens, under a Full Moon. (others call it grilling BBQ Wings, but close enough?) I burn offerings to the all powerful and wise God of Microstock, Hephaestus, who is the Greek god of artisans, blacksmiths, carpenters, craftsmen, fire, metallurgy, metalworking, sculpture and volcanoes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cC5rX7wM/Ash-Head-Square-gif.gif)
Also covering other options, I celebrate Saturnalia, with a Scotch tasting festival, near the winter solstice.
Charms are also something that everyone should have and use, for good luck. The rabbits foot is extremely powerful for more illustration downloads.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pmkhL4W/Pete-Sorcerer-Gnome-Charms.jpg)
Okay, you win. I feel like a beginner right now. You definitely have more opportunities to influence your success
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! ;D
No Pete, this is not manipulation. I have personally noticed that downloads increase when you dance naked around a public fountain in winter.
I'll submit photos later ;)
Please don't, just imagining that scene is scaring me. ;D
I generally sacrifice chickens, under a Full Moon. (others call it grilling BBQ Wings, but close enough?) I burn offerings to the all powerful and wise God of Microstock, Hephaestus, who is the Greek god of artisans, blacksmiths, carpenters, craftsmen, fire, metallurgy, metalworking, sculpture and volcanoes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cC5rX7wM/Ash-Head-Square-gif.gif)
Also covering other options, I celebrate Saturnalia, with a Scotch tasting festival, near the winter solstice.
Charms are also something that everyone should have and use, for good luck. The rabbits foot is extremely powerful for more illustration downloads.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pmkhL4W/Pete-Sorcerer-Gnome-Charms.jpg)
Okay, you win. I feel like a beginner right now. You definitely have more opportunities to influence your success
What's with all this weird spam? I’m not sure what kind of private conversation you two are having, but it seems like it belongs somewhere else – I mean, get a room or something... If you need to discuss this, maybe take it to a private chat instead of flooding the forum. You two have completely derailed the discussion.
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
Interesting...
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
Interesting...
Someone CLAIMED that he knew someone who ran a test and they claimed that they didn't receive credit for all the downloads, but they were waiting to check the data in case there was a delay. In other words, no one had anything except someone on FB who said it happened.
Sorry about having a little fun, jezz.
The only people who see manipulation of earnings are the ones who have lower sales than they think they should have. Anyone who's sales are up, doesn't claim there's any manipulation or favoritism, because that persons sales are up. Get it? I wasn't lying, my images are 1st in some searches and on another I'm 2,3,5 on the first page. One more, I see my images, depending on the variety of the exact search, moving around, but six are on the first page.
According to the conspiracy people, I am getting biased position and an unfair advantage. People with lower sales, of course will claim, it's some software manipulation.
In truth, I think it's just what it is and since my images that got better position, have sold or have a different view from the spammed, multiple other images, I got better rank. No conspiracy. (Of course I'd deny the conspiracy, because it's favoring me...)
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
Interesting...
Someone CLAIMED that he knew someone who ran a test and they claimed that they didn't receive credit for all the downloads, but they were waiting to check the data in case there was a delay. In other words, no one had anything except someone on FB who said it happened.
Sorry about having a little fun, jezz.
The only people who see manipulation of earnings are the ones who have lower sales than they think they should have. Anyone who's sales are up, doesn't claim there's any manipulation or favoritism, because that persons sales are up. Get it? I wasn't lying, my images are 1st in some searches and on another I'm 2,3,5 on the first page. One more, I see my images, depending on the variety of the exact search, moving around, but six are on the first page.
According to the conspiracy people, I am getting biased position and an unfair advantage. People with lower sales, of course will claim, it's some software manipulation.
In truth, I think it's just what it is and since my images that got better position, have sold or have a different view from the spammed, multiple other images, I got better rank. No conspiracy. (Of course I'd deny the conspiracy, because it's favoring me...)
I also have content ranking at the top, and at one point, I was making 6K just on SS. But, of course, as soon as I hit that, they changed the rules and cut earnings in half. Then came the tier reset, video bundles, and so on.
Not to mention, they bought out platforms like Videohive and Pond5—where I was making great money—and ruined them.
So yeah, I go back to my initial suspicion. Not saying it’s a fact, but… is there some manipulation going on from time to time?
:)
-
I'm seeing more than a few reports of contributors reporting very poor earnings this month on Shutterstock. My earnings are 4.35x more on Adobe Stock than Shutterstock so far this month / year. Shutterstock has really gone downhill over the past year and seems it has dropped off another ledge since the start of 2025.
-
I'm seeing more than a few reports of contributors reporting very poor earnings this month on Shutterstock. My earnings are 4.35x more on Adobe Stock than Shutterstock so far this month / year. Shutterstock has really gone downhill over the past year and seems it has dropped off another ledge since the start of 2025.
I'm certainly one of the people who would report exceptionally poor earnings this month and I'm on target for the worst month there since 2009. Adobe is currently 3 times higher in earnings, and usually, Shutterstock and Adobe are neck and neck.
Part of this is due to the level reset, and January last year was also poor until I got back to level 4, but the download numbers are lower by about 30%.
I'm sure that Shutterstock report sales, and whilst I also have a good number of images in top search positions, I do see that mine are mostly being pushed down by AI coming up to the top.
The cynic in me assumes that this is advantageous to them, as they can turn a blind eye, get the income, and then close down these portfolios, allowing them to keep 100% of the profit.
-
When p5 was taken over by ss sales started to drop. But they kept rising on Adobe.
Many think this is because SS did a lot less marketing for p5, preferring to sell contracts via ss.
If the merger is now coming, perhaps we might get a similar effect, sales of contracts via all ss companies going down with sales of contracts via getty/istock going up.
I think this is something to pay attention to.
While they might keep the agencies formally alive and visible, this does not mean that the sales team will offer contracts for all agencies equally.
It would be a lot easier to bundle all sales via the getty team and just offer access to ss and p5 content under the getty umbrella.
By end of the year we will know how things develop.
-
I'm certainly one of the people who would report exceptionally poor earnings this month and I'm on target for the worst month there since 2009. Adobe is currently 3 times higher in earnings, and usually, Shutterstock and Adobe are neck and neck.
Part of this is due to the level reset, and January last year was also poor until I got back to level 4, but the download numbers are lower by about 30%.
I'm sure that Shutterstock report sales, and whilst I also have a good number of images in top search positions, I do see that mine are mostly being pushed down by AI coming up to the top.
The cynic in me assumes that this is advantageous to them, as they can turn a blind eye, get the income, and then close down these portfolios, allowing them to keep 100% of the profit.
Im not far off that. Oddly the first week was above average then crashed in terms of volume and RPD. Assuming it doesnt change im looking at 2012 or so levels with obviously a lot more assets.
RPD is whats crashed though for me. Example last month it was $1.36 (photo and video combined). This month is $0.56. The last January before levels "Good news" it was $1.40
Its a combination of levels reset AND them selling more assets at a lower price to buyers meaning less to us. Given levels are entirely volume dependent this looks like the first levels month i wont reach Level 3 photo OR Level 3 video by the end of it.
-
I'm certainly one of the people who would report exceptionally poor earnings this month and I'm on target for the worst month there since 2009. Adobe is currently 3 times higher in earnings, and usually, Shutterstock and Adobe are neck and neck.
Part of this is due to the level reset, and January last year was also poor until I got back to level 4, but the download numbers are lower by about 30%.
I'm sure that Shutterstock report sales, and whilst I also have a good number of images in top search positions, I do see that mine are mostly being pushed down by AI coming up to the top.
The cynic in me assumes that this is advantageous to them, as they can turn a blind eye, get the income, and then close down these portfolios, allowing them to keep 100% of the profit.
Im not far off that. Oddly the first week was above average then crashed in terms of volume and RPD. Assuming it doesnt change im looking at 2012 or so levels with obviously a lot more assets.
RPD is whats crashed though for me. Example last month it was $1.36 (photo and video combined). This month is $0.56. The last January before levels "Good news" it was $1.40
Its a combination of levels reset AND them selling more assets at a lower price to buyers meaning less to us. Given levels are entirely volume dependent this looks like the first levels month i wont reach Level 3 photo OR Level 3 video by the end of it.
In past years, I've made level 4 well before the end of January, although it's been a few days longer each time. I'm still hopeful that I will get there before month end, but it's less likely this year.
Obviously, the January reset knocks the RPD for the month, but it's way down this year at 28c, (images only), which puts it behind Alamy, Adobe, Dreamtime, Bigstock, Canva and Depositphoto.
Congrats Shutterstock, you have moved from best on the planet to 7th place and, when Istock January stats come out next month, you'll be pushed to 8th.
How the mighty have fallen.......
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
Lol - why do you call anything you personally don't agree with a "conspiracy theory", and on top of that - not offer ANY intelligent discourse, other than labelling it as such? It would be like someone trying to discredit anything & everything you say by simply saying "Oh, there is ralf again, the left wing nut, yada yada yada, spouting his left wing nut nonsense". ARE you a left wing nut - and do you prefer just name calling? OR... are you capable of intelligent discourse?
He's just a doctor. And all doctors are a little crazy. They live in their own reality, the reality of their hospital. When doctors go out on the street, they don't see people around them, they only see patients, and that's why they diagnose everyone. Doctors also think that they are smarter than everyone else.
I already wrote to him that this forum is not a hospital and there are no patients of his here.
But probably you need to treat a doctor as a person who has specific deviations due to the nature of his work and his environment.
;D
-
For the month of December, Getty gave me twice as much income as Shutterstock.
This has never happened before. It means our money is being stolen. Or Shutterstock is being deliberately bankrupted.
-
For the month of December, Getty gave me twice as much income as Shutterstock.
This has never happened before. It means our money is being stolen. Or Shutterstock is being deliberately bankrupted.
Or customers are going elsewhere? A drop in income doesn't mean that anything underhanded is happening and, if you look at the search, there is a lot of very ordinary content at the top of the search, and a lot of AI content. Couple this with the facility to search by 'new' being removed, and perhaps customers have just got fed up with not finding what they need, so they are going elsewhere.
As my RPD is so low on Shutterstock, I'd be much happier if customers went to Adobe or Istock, as the RPD there is more than double Shutterstock's rate.
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
:-\
-
For the month of December, Getty gave me twice as much income as Shutterstock.
This has never happened before. It means our money is being stolen. Or Shutterstock is being deliberately bankrupted.
Or customers are going elsewhere? A drop in income doesn't mean that anything underhanded is happening and, if you look at the search, there is a lot of very ordinary content at the top of the search, and a lot of AI content. Couple this with the facility to search by 'new' being removed, and perhaps customers have just got fed up with not finding what they need, so they are going elsewhere.
As my RPD is so low on Shutterstock, I'd be much happier if customers went to Adobe or Istock, as the RPD there is more than double Shutterstock's rate.
Their quarterly calls and reports suggest a big collapse of subscription sales. The TrustPilot seems to suggest the same with mainly angry posts who signed up for 1-2 free images getting charged and nobody wanting the subscriptions. Also tallies with at least what im seeing where ive gone from a vast majority of subs to being SODs for low value instead (with a corresponding drop in volume).
TrustPilot and elsewhere also suggests angry buyers wading through pages and pages of AI spam and terrible keywording making it impossible to find a legit image or video of what they actually want.
Looking at the customer facing complaints on TP, Twitter and elsewhere it does seem like the lack of quality control of the library combined with their dubious selling practices seems to be switching buyers off and they're going elsewhere.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com)
Its rare to see reviews as uniformly poor, even for stock sites.
-
I'm genuinely surprised by the low figures from Shutterstock and Pond5 this January. Considering their business practices, I can't help but wonder if they might be manipulating the numbers or hiding sales—but is that even possible?
I'm experiencing a drop of around 70% compared to the same month last year. Is anyone else noticing something similar?
>:(
Very easy to do programatically. Its literally a couple lines of code, and yes - that is a risk you have selling on a 3rd party platform.
Easy way to test - get several friends to purchase several of your assets. If you are not credited with ALL the sales, then yes - they are manipulating the numbers.
I believe someone (here) had done that 1-2 years ago with shitterstock (& posted the results), and came to the conclusion that shitterstock was indeed keeping/hiding some sales. You should be able to do a search and find that.
Show me the posted results, and conclusion, I can't find them. You're making the claim, can you back it up?
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially 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.
-
Its rare to see reviews as uniformly poor, even for stock sites.
Did a fact check in 10 seconds. Adobe the same negative picture.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com)
and Alamy:
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/alamy.com (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/alamy.com)
and Ooops, found another one:
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.istockphoto.com (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.istockphoto.com)
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially 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 don’t 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.
:)
-
Its rare to see reviews as uniformly poor, even for stock sites.
Did a fact check in 10 seconds. Adobe the same negative picture.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com)
No this can't be true. Adobe is the best company in the world that only spreads love and is only here to support creative people, be it a contributor or customer. They can never have a bad review. That can not exist. You must have visited a fraudelent website or it's just the evil competitors writing all this negative reviews. Must be. C'mon man, it's Adobe we are speaking hereof (I will praise Adobe at all times).
-
Its rare to see reviews as uniformly poor, even for stock sites.
Did a fact check in 10 seconds. Adobe the same negative picture.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com (https://www.trustpilot.com/review/stock.adobe.com)
No this can't be true. Adobe is the best company in the world that only spreads love and is only here to support creative people, be it a contributor or customer. They can never have a bad review. That can not exist. You must have visited a fraudelent website or it's just the evil competitors writing all this negative reviews. Must be. C'mon man, it's Adobe we are speaking hereof (I will praise Adobe at all times).
It's all a conspiracy so we can just relax and ignore it.
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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.
there is no conspiracy, alongside what feels like 1 million ai only new accounts are what again feels like one million new producers in all stock groups everywhere and huge followings on certain youtubers.
It is simply real people, sorting agency content by bestsellers and then copying to the tiniest detail with the help of ai.
And they are here to stay.
And all the other agencies currently not taking ai, will take ai at some point, meaning they will all show up there as well.
On some places like shutterstock there is already a massive influx of undeclared ai.
This is the new world of competition we are all living with.
And this is how the old school producers felt when we pierced their sacred bubble and ruined their wonderful life of penthouse party shootings with beautiful models, when we offered great content for 50 cents and debated endlessly if it ethical to raise the price to 1 dollar…
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially 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 don’t 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 it’s 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.
-
No and Adobe didn't create zombie AI accounts to steal our best sellers.
No conspiracy needed - half of Pakistan is doing that job. Nothing to do with Adobe.
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
:-\
At this point, I have to agree with you on the whole.
There seem to be accounts that specifically copy bestsellers with the help of AI and fill the entire account with them. In another forum, someone explained how this is technically possible on a large scale.
Maybe he will explain it here.
Because I'm not very good at this sort of thing, I can't reproduce it here.
But it has nothing to do with Adobe.
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially 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 don’t 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 it’s 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.
Hey, I came here to share my thoughts, concerns, and even my fears with fellow contributors in a microstock forum because I think others might relate to them. Where else am I supposed to do that?
I apologize if I upset you, that wasn’t my goal.
;)
-
No and Adobe didn't create zombie AI accounts to steal our best sellers.
No conspiracy needed - half of Pakistan is doing that job. Nothing to do with Adobe.
LOL hahahaha.... So true.
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
:-\
At this point, I have to agree with you on the whole.
There seem to be accounts that specifically copy bestsellers with the help of AI and fill the entire account with them. In another forum, someone explained how this is technically possible on a large scale.
Maybe he will explain it here.
Because I'm not very good at this sort of thing, I can't reproduce it here.
But it has nothing to do with Adobe.
Wow! That's interesting...! :-X
-
I have another theory about what’s happening, especially on Adobe. I won’t go too deep into it for now since my numbers on Adobe are still growing, but something has caught my attention.
Lately, I’ve seen new accounts appearing on Adobe, filled exclusively with AI-generated content—images 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 that’s the case, they wouldn’t just be profiting from AI—they’d 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 disappointment—especially coming from Adobe, which so far has been the most contributor-friendly platform.
:-\
At this point, I have to agree with you on the whole.
There seem to be accounts that specifically copy bestsellers with the help of AI and fill the entire account with them. In another forum, someone explained how this is technically possible on a large scale.
Maybe he will explain it here.
Because I'm not very good at this sort of thing, I can't reproduce it here.
But it has nothing to do with Adobe.
Wow! That's interesting...! :-X
Hmmm, I think we missed a big business opportunity here. Too late now, I guess?
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
Lol - why do you call anything you personally don't agree with a "conspiracy theory", and on top of that - not offer ANY intelligent discourse, other than labelling it as such? It would be like someone trying to discredit anything & everything you say by simply saying "Oh, there is ralf again, the left wing nut, yada yada yada, spouting his left wing nut nonsense". ARE you a left wing nut - and do you prefer just name calling? OR... are you capable of intelligent discourse?
He's just a doctor. And all doctors are a little crazy. They live in their own reality, the reality of their hospital. When doctors go out on the street, they don't see people around them, they only see patients, and that's why they diagnose everyone. Doctors also think that they are smarter than everyone else.
I already wrote to him that this forum is not a hospital and there are no patients of his here.
But probably you need to treat a doctor as a person who has specific deviations due to the nature of his work and his environment.
;D
I've only just discovered this stupid post.
I don't work in a hospital.
Should you ever have a heart attack, apoplexy, tumor or an open fracture - in this case it is certainly good if the doctor is smarter than you and thinks of his patients.
I think it's pretty poor that you keep coming back to the personal level without any arguments.
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
exactly - my income is up, must be the quality of my work. my income is down - the devil's running te agency & stealing my money.
-
I don't work in a hospital.
A doctor is already a diagnosis. Therefore, it does not matter where you work.
;D ;D ;D
-
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.
-
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
Lol - why do you call anything you personally don't agree with a "conspiracy theory", and on top of that - not offer ANY intelligent discourse, other than labelling it as such? It would be like someone trying to discredit anything & everything you say by simply saying "Oh, there is ralf again, the left wing nut, yada yada yada, spouting his left wing nut nonsense". ARE you a left wing nut - and do you prefer just name calling? OR... are you capable of intelligent discourse?
He's just a doctor. And all doctors are a little crazy. They live in their own reality, the reality of their hospital. When doctors go out on the street, they don't see people around them, they only see patients, and that's why they diagnose everyone. Doctors also think that they are smarter than everyone else.
I already wrote to him that this forum is not a hospital and there are no patients of his here.
But probably you need to treat a doctor as a person who has specific deviations due to the nature of his work and his environment.
;D
I think it's pretty poor that you keep coming back to the personal level without any arguments.
And where in my post, which was not addressed to you, did you see the transition to your personal level? I didn't even write your nickname! ;D ;D ;D
-
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.
Or maybe there is a backlog because reviewers were on holiday, while producers used the holidays to upload more?
Review times at istock for video are also much longer...
-
I have a couple of submissions that have been waiting for a week. However, I uploaded around 200 images over the holiday period and they were all reviewed in 2-3 days. Many of the same images are still in the queue on Adobe.
As to downloads, I'm well ahead of January 2024 on Shutterstock but Adobe is rather slow. The fact that they are high quality commercial images explains why I'm well ahead and also demonstrates that Adobe being slow is clearly down to something nefarious on their part.
-
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.
-
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.
+100
Now everything is possible!
-
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?
-
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?
It amuses me people putting 2+2 together and getting 38.
They havent merged, the final details havent been decided, nothing has been signed and there hasnt been regulatory approval. I reckon 2-3 years before anything happens, if ever.
-
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?
It amuses me people putting 2+2 together and getting 38.
They havent merged, the final details havent been decided, nothing has been signed and there hasnt been regulatory approval. I reckon 2-3 years before anything happens, if ever.
I think the merger will be finalized faster than that, possibly before 2026, if everything goes smoothly. Large mergers and acquisitions must file premerger notification and wait for government review. That's the first step, and they haven't passed that yet.
But I'd agree, it's not going to be fast or easy to have SS combined or eventually absorbed into Getty.