MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0  (Read 69449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: May 27, 2020, 05:15 »
+5
I remember well, when i stock started the whole sh* people here were warning that other agencies will follow if contributors stick to istock. How right they were! And yes other followed as Alamy etc. and now shutterstock. And this will go on if people continue to contribute under these inaceptable conditions.

Anyway my account is completely deleted not only suspended.!


« Reply #226 on: May 27, 2020, 05:17 »
+6
Removing a significant amount of content, like 20% of total, really pisses of customers who have lightboxed many files for their projects, now got them approved and suddenly the content is gone.

That is what the agencies react to - the significant customer turn off.

Deactivations are a useful threat/instrument, but of course only to be used in extreme situations.

Hyperstock this year was a significant threat to my income and I insisted that all my files are removed from that project by pond5. And they complied with my request. So did many others and finally hyperstock closed the project (for now).

In this case with SS my main gripe is with reset to zero every New Year, it significantly devalues my christmas images, which only sell in the last quarter but cannot really contributeto keep my level up. Plus I absolutely resent being sent to Zero every New Year, as if I had never provided anything useful. I really dont see why I should work only for Shutterstock for one or two quarters, as my running costs for rent, production, software are unchanged in January.

About the change for subs I will only be able to make a decision after I have at least one month of sales.

And then there is the question if SS takes the current backlash into account and modifies their royalty system.

If they are clever they will try to avoid a nuclear online shitstorm and at least give us a 12 month rolling target system like istock.




« Reply #227 on: May 27, 2020, 05:19 »
+2
So lets have a different look at the situation:

Assumption: Shutterstock lost money on the large subscriptions for years.

What does that mean for their business acumen? Either they were just dumb for several years or the calculation is just different: customers dont use up all subscription slots.

Hey wait a minute: if the customers didnt use up all images, why will they set us on 15 to 40% of max usage leaving a guaranteed margin of 60 to 85% for shutter plus cashing in 100% on unused download slots? Because they are not dumb - and are now ripping off the contributors with their own guaranteed margin plus bonus for their insanely cheap subscription packages. So in consequence they would even get a higher share on higher plans - the risk of business is now completely on the backs of the contributors. Well done!

I want an opt out for the 350/750 silly subscription plans.

BTW: I didn't get the email yet, so I suppose my earnings will not be affected ;-)

« Reply #228 on: May 27, 2020, 05:23 »
+2
It would be nice to show restated earnings totals of 2019. How would the new scheme have affected total payout? How much less or more (??) will be payed out in total. I guess such a calculation has been done before deciding on this new scheme and it would only be fair to shutterstocks partners (the contributors) to show overall changes in payout. We cant individually do this calculation because we dont know which plan was used to buy our images.

« Reply #229 on: May 27, 2020, 05:25 »
+7
One quick thing, give SS and SS contributor app a 1 star review, lets send their rating to hell.

Do leave a review mentioning

On May 26th Shutterstock suddenly gave its contributors a 6 day notice that they would cut their earning by 60%. They sent an unclear, haphazard communication (with one correction mail hours later) on how they would screw over the very people who make the content you love.

Buyers : Please take your business to Adobestock, their fair payouts mean you'll always have beautiful up to date images

Contributors : Disable your portfolio on 1st Jun and send a mail to Adobe telling that you've done so. Ensure you spread the word.

Lets hit this first. Starting now.

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk


« Reply #230 on: May 27, 2020, 05:35 »
0
Done. Lets take this despicable juggernaut down as much as possible.

One quick thing, give SS and SS contributor app a 1 star review, lets send their rating to hell.

Do leave a review mentioning

On May 26th Shutterstock suddenly gave its contributors a 6 day notice that they would cut their earning by 60%. They sent an unclear, haphazard communication (with one correction mail hours later) on how they would screw over the very people who make the content you love.

Buyers : Please take your business to Adobestock, their fair payouts mean you'll always have beautiful up to date images

Contributors : Disable your portfolio on 1st Jun and send a mail to Adobe telling that you've done so. Ensure you spread the word.

Lets hit this first. Starting now.

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #231 on: May 27, 2020, 05:40 »
+4
With all the upset people, this is the perfect storm for Adobe to swoop in with a sweet exclusive offering.
Yeah, but they'd need to guarantee it for a decent length of time.

« Reply #232 on: May 27, 2020, 05:41 »
+3
If they are clever they will try to avoid a nuclear online shitstorm and at least give us a 12 month rolling target system like istock.

Don't worry. They will backtrack on this. They already know our reaction and in a few days they will say that in consideration to contributoros they will honor the percentage finished at the years end to roll over to january. All very studied.

They are aware that as it stands now many people will stop submitting content and competition will benefit great from this. Calculations have been made a long time ago. Getty deja vu repeated again. Welcome to the matrix.

« Reply #233 on: May 27, 2020, 05:45 »
+1
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 05:54 by monti »

« Reply #234 on: May 27, 2020, 05:58 »
0
It's a matter of time until AS will do the same as IS and SS!

I don't have social media mambo-jambo, but you people should flood their facebook and tweeter with this wonderful picture that represents their chief in action.

« Reply #235 on: May 27, 2020, 06:22 »
0
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.

Is that even new? More or less than before? Looks familiar to me.

« Reply #236 on: May 27, 2020, 06:25 »
+1
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.
We know quite a bit the "most popular" image pack is .28 per image and we will be getting a perecentage of that.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 07:42 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #237 on: May 27, 2020, 06:32 »
+2
What we need to do is campaign in this fashion: Every customer of SS should download all their monthly quota of images in the last day(s) of every month -> more money for contributors, less for SS.

« Reply #238 on: May 27, 2020, 06:35 »
0
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.

It's not that hard. The largest one (750 images per month) is 0,21 per image, everyone is going to earn $0,10 per download. If someone downloads only 200 images a certain month, they will pay photographers $20 and put $130+ in their own pocket.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 06:38 by Perry »

« Reply #239 on: May 27, 2020, 06:44 »
+1
Anyone considered seeing if Petapixel want to write something ? ( https://petapixel.com/contact/ )

They've had prior articles covering Shutterstock and others.

« Reply #240 on: May 27, 2020, 06:46 »
+5
Shutterstock's new policy is an abusive attack on the hard working artists who's dedication and creativity built and sustain their company.  I have been a steady contributor for 11 years and am proud of the 8200 shot portfolio I crafted. 

I have stopped uploading and will reduce my portfolio size in protest.  I am seriously considering deactivating all of it. 

I urge Shutterstock to reverse their moronic mistake. 

In the long term supporting artists will yield far better returns than starving them.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 15:08 by trek »

« Reply #241 on: May 27, 2020, 06:58 »
+1
Regarding to subscription sales, that always was main sale; we never was paid based on the subscription package that buyer buy. There are 4 subscrption packetes:

10 images for 49usd (Packet 1 or P1)
50 images for 125usd (Packet 2 or P2)
350 images for 199usd (Packet 3 or P3)
750 images for 249usd (Packet 4 or P4)

Based on this and the % presented for SS the earnings per sale under new criteria is:

Level 1   0,74 usd(P1) ---- 0,38 usd(P2) ---- 0,09 usd(P3) ---- 0,05 usd(P4)
Level 2   0,98 usd(P1) ---- 0,50 usd(P2) ---- 0,11 usd(P3) ---- 0,07 usd(P4)
Level 3   1,23 usd(P1) ---- 0,63 usd(P2) ---- 0,14 usd(P3) ---- 0,08 usd(P4)
Level 4   1,47 usd(P1) ---- 0,75 usd(P2) ---- 0,17 usd(P3) ---- 0,10 usd(P4)
Level 5   1,72 usd(P1) ---- 0,88 usd(P2) ---- 0,20 usd(P3) ---- 0,12 usd(P4)
Level 6   1,96 usd(P1) ---- 1,00 usd(P2) ---- 0,23 usd(P3) ---- 0,13 usd(P4)
Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.

There is different pricing if it's monthly or annual subscription, and if the annual subscription is payed in advance or monthly. Further, if not all images are used in a month, the price per image will in reality be higher.
Is this correct? Will they pay the actual percentage based on subs used or s**w us to the maximum by paying the minimum (spend/ allowed number of dls regardless of actual ones used)? I have a horrible feeling it's the latter and that will make huge difference to what we are paid.

They have to just pay the minimum, otherwise they would have to wait until the end of the month to see how many of the photos were used and they don't do that.


« Reply #242 on: May 27, 2020, 07:03 »
+29
How about the upper management at #shutterstock lead be example... each Jan 1st their pay goes to minimum wage.. if they reach their quota their pay increases ...then the following year goes back to min wage 🤷🏼‍♂️

« Reply #243 on: May 27, 2020, 07:17 »
+6
Flood social their social media with truth about their greed.

Negative rating on their app, and truth in comments.

Stop uploading on SS

1st June STRIKE!


« Reply #244 on: May 27, 2020, 07:18 »
+4
Just worth adding that if you have turned off your image and video sales, don't forget to lower your payout threshold to below what is currently in your account and get your money out. If they're willing to do this to us with 6 days notice, who knows what they'll do with money held on their accounts, especially when you've frozen your sales.

« Reply #245 on: May 27, 2020, 07:27 »
+3
Don't worry. They will backtrack on this. They already know our reaction and in a few days they will say that in consideration to contributoros they will honor the percentage finished at the years end to roll over to january. All very studied.

They are aware that as it stands now many people will stop submitting content and competition will benefit great from this. Calculations have been made a long time ago. Getty deja vu repeated again. Welcome to the matrix.


It is possible that something like this can happen. Its actually very old trick.

if you want to raise tax for 5%, you go into public with information that you are going to raise tax for 8%, then all the people go on rage frenzy, after 2-3 weeks of this, and some kind of negotiations, they come to conclusion that 5% increase is a win-win situation. Remember that 5% increase was initial idea.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 07:30 by skysense »

« Reply #246 on: May 27, 2020, 07:29 »
+8
What is most infuriating is the intentionally skewed logic. Contributors invest upfront in their equipment, expertise and time to create, do all the titling and keywording and are even asked to promote. Stock companies then get their product for free, 99% of the work done, and all they have to do is sell, calculate payments and take care of their contributors with minimal respect.  As insultingly low as we were already getting paid, it was at least based on SOME kind of logical system that rewards loyalty and past performance. But now, Shutterstock is punishing/rewarding contributors based on THEIR own performance, not ours. Once we submit a file, it's in their court and it's on them to sell the product. If your files start dropping in sales because they are favoring Euro/Russian/Employee stock warehouses, bury your files in search results through incompetent tinkering, SS wins and you lose. If the company fails in their job and everyone's sales go down, every single contributor loses and SS still wins.

We are being rated/punished/rewarded based on Shutterstock's performance and handling of our files. We have zero control over this, and that's the crux of the BS here, IMO. The timing is particularly shameless and proves they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their own greedy orifices for even a second.

However, it's great to FINALLY see more contributors speak up about forming unions, coalitions, any form of activism or coming together to fight for our future. PLEASE continue that and do not be swayed by the same naysayers that immediately and repeatedly argue against it. Remember that most of them are either directly employed by a stock company or are in bed deep with one in some way or another, so their motivations are personal and not in the larger group of contributors best interest. Also, don't be surprised how many will stay complacent and just drop their trousers and smile while the companies take more and give less. Hell, look how many lemmings STILL contribute to and defend iStock. THAT is at least partly WHY SS believes they can (and likely will) get away with what they are doing.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 07:43 by Daryl Ray »

« Reply #247 on: May 27, 2020, 07:39 »
+2
Don't worry. They will backtrack on this. They already know our reaction and in a few days they will say that in consideration to contributoros they will honor the percentage finished at the years end to roll over to january. All very studied.

They are aware that as it stands now many people will stop submitting content and competition will benefit great from this. Calculations have been made a long time ago. Getty deja vu repeated again. Welcome to the matrix.


It is possible that something like this can happen. Its actually very old trick.

if you want to raise tax for 5%, you go into public with information that you are going to raise tax for 8%, then all the people go on rage frenzy, after 2-3 weeks of this, and some kind of negotiations, they come to conclusion that 5% increase is a win-win situation. Remember that 5% increase was initial idea.

Just like Alamy did with their 20% royalty cut in 2019 which they then limited to none-exclusive images because they "listened to their contributors  ::) ::)"

« Reply #248 on: May 27, 2020, 07:46 »
0
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.

It's not that hard. The largest one (750 images per month) is 0,21 per image, everyone is going to earn $0,10 per download. If someone downloads only 200 images a certain month, they will pay photographers $20 and put $130+ in their own pocket.

Ok. But you will get more money from some subscribers and more money from enhanced licences (even 33, 37 and 40 EU per download) and also more money from 'on demand'  (3,6 EU per download).  the result is not easy to predict because lots of customers will changed their old plans for new ones. and you dont know what the result will be. Thats what I mean.  I suspect that they want to get rid off the people who flooded the stock with pictures of little commercial value (like 'girlfriends portraits in a park and pictures of dogs on holiday)  and those images will get lower income now, in cotrast to images sold in high volume by more engaged photographers.  How about this?  :) 
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 07:49 by monti »

« Reply #249 on: May 27, 2020, 07:47 »
0
Anyone considered seeing if Petapixel want to write something ? ( https://petapixel.com/contact/ )

They've had prior articles covering Shutterstock and others.
This would be a good idea. The more news the better

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
87 Replies
33397 Views
Last post July 24, 2006, 06:01
by GeoPappas
21 Replies
7295 Views
Last post May 04, 2006, 08:28
by leaf
14 Replies
6691 Views
Last post March 19, 2008, 14:47
by vonkara
106 Replies
26591 Views
Last post October 04, 2014, 07:33
by Hobostocker
19 Replies
9819 Views
Last post July 22, 2015, 23:08
by hatman12

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle