MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: NeonRobot on June 16, 2020, 02:43
-
I am quite sure that week is too small period for them to understand the situation in full perspective. Concoction of various drugs and expensive alcohol making brain too tolerant and slow. So show must go on.
Link to Russian mirror:
http://www.microstock.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=20329 (http://www.microstock.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=20329)
FIRST PHASE: JUN 15-21
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/stop-uploading-to-ss-join-the-action (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/stop-uploading-to-ss-join-the-action)
THIRD PHASE: JUN 29-JUL8
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-blackout-3rd-phase-jun-29-jul-8/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-blackout-3rd-phase-jun-29-jul-8/)
-
Since yesterday 9:00AM until today 9:00AM, 2,5 million images gone
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview?usp=gmail_thread
-
Since yesterday 9:00AM until today 9:00AM, 2,5 million images gone
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview?usp=gmail_thread
Too little.
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Frankly? I don't give a sh#t.
My strategy is simple:
-3rd phase: 29 - 5 JUL
-4th?
-turn on , delete all stuff which is too good for ss
-never upload again
-spread "ads" about ss for the lifetime
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Their servers are overruned by turning off procedure of angry slaves;)
Wait a bit and your pictures will return with ability to sale for 0.05$ in the nearest future!
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Their servers are overruned by turning off procedure of angry slaves;)
Wait a bit and your pictures will return with ability to sale for 0.05$ in the nearest future!
Could it really block their servers?
We all agree to reactivate our portfolios at the same time (we decide on a GMT time that is convenient for most of us - 17.00 GMT [?])
Then two days later we deactivate our portfolios in the same way.
And we continue like this every two days…
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Their servers are overruned by turning off procedure of angry slaves;)
Wait a bit and your pictures will return with ability to sale for 0.05$ in the nearest future!
Could it really block their servers?
We all agree to reactivate our portfolios at the same time (we decide on a GMT time that is convenient for most of us - 17.00 GMT [?])
Then two days later we deactivate our portfolios in the same way.
And we continue like this every two days…
If they are not stupid they will remove option of port disabling.
Coz described method could count as ddos attack if sufficient contributors will take part in this action.
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Their servers are overruned by turning off procedure of angry slaves;)
Wait a bit and your pictures will return with ability to sale for 0.05$ in the nearest future!
Could it really block their servers?
We all agree to reactivate our portfolios at the same time (we decide on a GMT time that is convenient for most of us - 17.00 GMT [?])
Then two days later we deactivate our portfolios in the same way.
And we continue like this every two days…
If they got their things set up right, I don't think it will block their servers. The system is probably just working the queue of disabled / enabled profiles at available processing capacity, and capacity can be added pretty fast and easy nowadays.
I can imagine it disrupts the customer experience somehow, with images being available/unavailable intermittently, but we're talking about a fraction of the complete database which is disabled/enabled, and that database is loaded with plenty of assets covering the same subject. Chances are pretty high a buyer will find something that fits the need anyhow.
One thing to add: Hovering over the question mark in the account settings menu mentions that images can only be disabled in very rare cases, such as waiting for an exclusivity clause with another party. They remain pretty vague about the circumstances when to use the option of disabling your images, but I can imagine that playing around with it too much can be seen as a violation of their TOS.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
How about ranking reset every year?
It looks like you don't have basic self-respect.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
As far as I'm concerned it's more a question of principle (Shutterstock's* way of doing things) than of price.
Frankly, personally, I don't care much about Shutterstock, with or without my life won't change...
I'm much more concerned about how the world depends more and more on these (not always so) big internet companies that in a nice and playful way, screw us over for the benefit of a few.
*and others
-
Btw I was referring to the contributor admin area where I only see 300ish images now. I thought they'd only remove the image on the front end, not the back end?
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Yes they do and it usually takes 72 hours for them to come back.
Your sales will resume almost immediately (dependent on quality and all the usual stuff)
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
I was pointing out the same thing, even $ 0.38 is miserable. But, I understood that it sends very strong and effective campaign message. My point of view (and answer to your question) is that people are unsatisfied loosing 30% - 50% of their earnings overnight, that is were anger comes from, that is the point. We all know it is not about $ 0.10 but it is symbolic.
-
It is already pennies, but they cut even such amounts.
Greed. Should be punished.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
Glad you wrote some people because I have quit iStock a looong time ago. Same with a dozen other low payers and low sellers such as BS, DP, DT, 123RF, YAY, etc... even those that do not exist anymore.
Of course you're a fool to protest to this change while still uploading to IS or similar but I'm not one of them. I don't go below 30% either. I am still with SS, AS, P5 and AL and that's it.
Some complain about 0.10 but to be honest 0.38 isn't that great either. I've seen some amazing (art)work being sold for pennies on micro's. I am guilty of that too btw, way too much time and effort to provide them the best and for what? fool around with their reviewers first and then earn a few dollars (if that) for all that hard work, makes sense right!
I've also seen many bragg about gear, technique, commercial skills, experience, etc... while selling their work for pennies! ::)
Micro's should be selling smelly curly turds on white images or mosquitos being killed by fly swapper clips!
ps. I'm all for this protest btw and disabled my image and video portfolio!
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
If all of those "many agencies" cut royalties by 50%, what happens to your stock income?
That's what this is about. Sending a message that agencies that cut royalties will lose a big chunk of their libraries. We already did that with iStock, which used to be the #1 stock site by far but is now #3, if you look at the poll to the right.
Saying you're selling images for 2˘ is nothing to crow about, btw.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
The $0.10 is not the exception, it's more like the rule. The majority of the sales are in the 0.10$ - $0.20 range. At least, that's how it looks for me.
There would be far less fixation if these commissions would be the exception and compensated by far higher ones.
And if you worked your way up in the tiers only to get a slightly better RPD, there's a reset to tier 1 at Jan 1st to thank you for your efforts.
The problem is not getting $0.10 for some sales. I guess most of us would be fine with that, under circumstances (limited use or very small resolution for instance).
But getting $0.10 for the majority of what you sell at Shutterstock is a totally different story.
And yes, low commissions were already a problem in the past, many people already complaining about it, but slashing that subscription commission further with at least 60% feels extremely unfair.
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Yes they do and it usually takes 72 hours for them to come back.
Your sales will resume almost immediately (dependent on quality and all the usual stuff)
Thanks for confirming. :-)
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
-
Um, I am not reactiviating my portfolio at all. None of this 1-week stuff. That won't do a thing to SS. They need to be hit hard and choked of content permanently. For those doing a temporary closure, that does not help with the long-term impact we're looking to achieve. All SS does is wait a week. Bang. Images reactivated. No, we need to strangle them of really well done, salable content to the point where their stock price falls significantly (and remains weak), Investors flee, the board removes Stan, and nobody wants to buy SS if they go up for sale. That takes discipline and commitment.
-
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Everything should be back once you re-enable.
In my catalog manager I can only see those files I put into sets - which is a huge chunk of them
I did the turn off/on once before (a long time ago) when I was an iStock exclusive for 3 years.
-
I turned my portfolio off May 31 and it stays off until I see something positive happen - perhaps the old rates plus a tier or two above the previous maximums?
-
I turned my portfolio off May 31 and it stays off until I see something positive happen - perhaps the old rates plus a tier or two above the previous maximums?
Same here.
I've already moved on from SS.
-
Peeps don't forget to add your link in SS profile so people can find your work elsewhere. Also create a gmail (or other email service) address with your real or contributor name to use as contact address.
If you don't have a website for your microstock profile then you can create one for free at Wix. (geez I sound like a commercial)
Any free service will do of course but I took Wix because it seems to be integrated with Shutterstock and since the purpose of this website is to steer away from SS I find this quite amusing ;D
We are all creatives/designers so it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a quick website.
For any help regarding webdesign please contact Jo Ann Snover!
*hides behind desk*
lol kidding of course, my sincere apologies milady ;)
-
Jo Ann Snover doesn't need any more things to do!! :)
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1272934303807098881
It would be really great to have the collection size waaaay down when they close their books on Q2 2020
Then Stan Pavlovsky would have more explaining to do in the earnings call...
Edited Jun 17
I'd like to emphasize (sorry for the color, but it will perhaps catch someone's eye) how much of a difference it would make if we can keep the collection size low through June 30, 2020
For those of you who can, another week and a bit (beyond the planned one week) would mean we could get our action in writing in their "Key operating metrics" section of the report. The collection size and percentage growth are in every quarterly report
Take a look at the numbers for 2017 - Q1 2020. It's natural the percentage growth will slow as the collection balloons (image spam much??), but imagine how striking it would be to see a 13% or 14% growth rate. The lowest previous report 2017-19 was 30%, Q1 this year was 27%
2017
63%, 57%, 52%, 46%
2018
42%, 41%, 42%, 42%
2019
39%, 37%, 34%, 30%
If we can hold the collection down to 320 million, it'd be 14% growth (they do it over the same quarter previous year, so Q2 2019 in our case; the comparison is 280 million images). That would be about half the previous lowest growth...
It might even be possible to contact analysts to get them to ask about it, but I'm not sure about being able to do that
-
Peeps don't forget to add your link in SS profile so people can find your work elsewhere. Also create a gmail (or other email service) address with your real or contributor name to use as contact address.
If you don't have a website for your microstock profile then you can create one for free at Wix. (geez I sound like a commercial)
Any free service will do of course but I took Wix because it seems to be integrated with Shutterstock and since the purpose of this website is to steer away from SS I find this quite amusing ;D
We are all creatives/designers so it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a quick website.
Also for anyone who doesn't have time or is a little intimidated by setting up an actual site you could go the route of just making yourself a profile page with links to your work on a service like https://about.me/ or https://linktr.ee/ (Both have free versions last I checked.) They are really easy to set up even with zero tech skills or patience :)
-
It is not wise to suggest free sites or free services. No client will ever browse or take serious someone selling work online but not paying for hosting. Plus website developers also need to get jobs and got payed ::)
-
Adobe Portfolio or Behance
-
It is not wise to suggest free sites or free services. No client will ever browse or take serious someone selling work online but not paying for hosting. Plus website developers also need to get jobs and got payed ::)
I was only suggesting a temporary solution for contributors who might not currently have the time or budget to build a website to get their links out quickly. As a web designer myself very I'm well aware that people get paid to build sites.
It's a pretty big stretch to say "no client ever" will click on those links. In my experience clients absolutely will click on a link and contact you if they are really interested in your work.
-
Um, I am not reactiviating my portfolio at all. None of this 1-week stuff. That won't do a thing to SS. They need to be hit hard and choked of content permanently. For those doing a temporary closure, that does not help with the long-term impact we're looking to achieve. All SS does is wait a week. Bang. Images reactivated. No, we need to strangle them of really well done, salable content to the point where their stock price falls significantly (and remains weak), Investors flee, the board removes Stan, and nobody wants to buy SS if they go up for sale. That takes discipline and commitment.
I’m with you. It’s the same old, same old abusive relationship thing. They crap up the site with similars, garbage and stolen work, so most contributors can’t even get a fair shake. Then they cut commissions. So people get fed up and stand up to them. So then, what, they maybe apologize and say “just kidding” and everybody runs back? Nope. I don’t work with those kind of business ethics. My images are gone!
Besides, I will be very surprised if they walk back their stance. They have shareholders to keep happy, and they can’t pay fair commissions and pay shareholders too. I have read speculation that they might be doing a pump and dump. That seems highly possible, too.
-
I turned my portfolio off May 31 and it stays off until I see something positive happen - perhaps the old rates plus a tier or two above the previous maximums?
Same. I'm never turning it back on at the current rates.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
How about ranking reset every year?
It looks like you don't have basic self-respect.
you have NO IDEA of my strategic imperatives -- keep to comments that reflect real info
-
It is not wise to suggest free sites or free services. No client will ever browse or take serious someone selling work online but not paying for hosting. Plus website developers also need to get jobs and got payed ::)
I was only suggesting a temporary solution for contributors who might not currently have the time or budget to build a website to get their links out quickly. As a web designer myself very I'm well aware that people get paid to build sites.
It's a pretty big stretch to say "no client ever" will click on those links. In my experience clients absolutely will click on a link and contact you if they are really interested in your work.
Making a site is easy. You missed the "pay someone to make it professional part". Anyway, there are individuals out there selling in clean professional sites. I wouldn't dare to present a my-cool-portfolio-freewebsite-because-i-dont-wanna-pay-50bucks-someone-dot-whatever plus a possible addition ad banner from Freepik or Shutterstock.
And as long as we speak for principles. I wouldn't ever made a site to a hist providing free imagery to their clients.
But again you are right. Clients do shop around the internet. Depending the client maybe will follow links and buy, maybe will download and crop watermark to use.
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
How about ranking reset every year?
It looks like you don't have basic self-respect.
you have NO IDEA of my strategic imperatives -- keep to comments that reflect real info
Woha you donating almost 50.000 of imagery, nice one.They should thank you)))
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
How about ranking reset every year?
It looks like you don't have basic self-respect.
you have NO IDEA of my strategic imperatives -- keep to comments that reflect real info
Woha you donating almost 50.000 of imagery, nice one.They should thank you)))
Don't bother, I was going to reply but it's not even worth the effort. Well I will make a small effort.
Like I said before these groupies are making up all kinds of excuses (and expensive words) to justify their commitment to SS even though they know they are getting scrwd six ways from sunday. Who needs a reality check here?
In fact the more they upload the better for us since buyers will start to notice the lack of quality more quickly and this will in turn make it easier for them to switch stores.
If these people have no issue with selling at 0,10c then it means they believe their work is of such low quality that it's only worth 0,10c which is fine by me and I believe them.
Mind you that I am not talking about the people out there who are very much against SS recent change and would like to take action but just can't afford it, especially during these difficult times. It's the groupies who are all for it I'm referring to.
-
Could it really block their servers?
We all agree to reactivate our portfolios at the same time (we decide on a GMT time that is convenient for most of us - 17.00 GMT [?])
Then two days later we deactivate our portfolios in the same way.
And we continue like this every two days…
It's surely set up on a queue or cron sort of action to only process so many at a time. If I were to build it it would just be a single bool column "available" or something but, I doubt simply enabling or re-enabling is enough to cause much server stress. (since that would be a problem they'd surely have had to address already when receiving their umpteen million pictures per day.)
-
I still can't understand why some people are so fixated with $0.10 downloads.
For years I've been selling images on iStock for as little as $0.02 and as high as $20.00.
I presume those that are unhappy put too much emphasis on Shutterstock rather than spreading their assets among many agencies.
Because, each of my stupid little things takes at minimum 20 seconds just for upload, and max – on the flags for instance, about a day. I'm not on iStock either and quite frankly, them and SS can go fuck themselves ...
-
3rd phase:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-blackout-3rd-phase-jun-29-jul-8/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-blackout-3rd-phase-jun-29-jul-8/)
-
After 13 years of SS the time has come to say goodbye. Can somebody tell me how to delete pictures on SS? Clearly, i removed all my images arranged and sorted under the catalog manager. That was the easy part. But there is more ... How can i delete those files not included in my catalog manager selections? Tips are highly appreciated. Thanks!
-
I turned my portfolio off May 31 and it stays off until I see something positive happen - perhaps the old rates plus a tier or two above the previous maximums?
Same. I'm never turning it back on at the current rates.
Same here too.
I'm done with SS unless they take some major, reliable steps to regain my trust.
-
I have a few photos that rank at the top of searches that I would like to disable. However, I'm concerned about losing my ranking once the photos are enabled again. Does anyone know what would happen? Thanks.
-
I have a few photos that rank at the top of searches that I would like to disable. However, I'm concerned about losing my ranking once the photos are enabled again. Does anyone know what would happen? Thanks.
Don't care.
-
I disabled my account as well!
-
I have a few photos that rank at the top of searches that I would like to disable. However, I'm concerned about losing my ranking once the photos are enabled again. Does anyone know what would happen? Thanks.
If you disable your portfolio then re-activate your image ranking appears to stay as it was
Though I would say the longer you leave it de-activated it may affect ranking.
-
I deleted my images. SS just isn’t worth the hassle anymore. #boycottShutterstock
-
They begin to delete contributor icons with striked out 10c pictures and clearing description field about royalties drop.
Put everyting back, two ports.
-
I have a few photos that rank at the top of searches that I would like to disable. However, I'm concerned about losing my ranking once the photos are enabled again. Does anyone know what would happen? Thanks.
If your intention from the beginning on was only a temporarily deactivation of your portfolio, better reactivate immediately, and accept selling the majority of your work at 10$c.
These few weeks of boycot aren't gonna change anything. This is the new normal at SS.
As I see it, there are two options: accept it and take the pennies, or quit them and don't look back.
-
I have a few photos that rank at the top of searches that I would like to disable. However, I'm concerned about losing my ranking once the photos are enabled again. Does anyone know what would happen? Thanks.
If your intention from the beginning on was only a temporarily deactivation of your portfolio, better reactivate immediately, and accept selling the majority of your work at 10$c.
These few weeks of boycot aren't gonna change anything. This is the new normal at SS.
As I see it, there are two options: accept it and take the pennies, or quit them and don't look back.
i don't agree...they are trying to scare people doing this,but i'm sure that if you ask to reactivate the account they will do it in a bit...they are angry of contributors and new content...
-
As I see it, there are two options: accept it and take the pennies, or quit them and don't look back.
There's a people who see other options. If you like it or not. And you are not helping them.
Let's keep united. Let's let everybody do his part as hard as he can.
-
Continue here:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-blackout-3rd-phase-jun-29-jul-8/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-blackout-3rd-phase-jun-29-jul-8/)