pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0  (Read 68301 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #475 on: May 31, 2020, 08:00 »
+3
Speaking of SS and the evil company they've become, I wish we had Alita (Battle Angel) on our side. She could deliver that infamous line "I will not stand by in the presence of evil" and then whip SS into submission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HqhPgauTc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3D2vmWD88w

We have to be our own guardian angels.

There are so many of us...


« Reply #476 on: May 31, 2020, 08:11 »
+6
Stopping uploads is also an easier solution for the many people who simply cannot afford to switch of portfolios right now.

It should always be a personal decision. If you simply need the money right now, dont do it. Feed the family, but you can focus your uploads aggressively elsewhere and bring more balance.


« Reply #477 on: May 31, 2020, 08:21 »
+5
Stopping uploads is also an easier solution for the many people who simply cannot afford to switch of portfolios right now.

It should always be a personal decision. If you simply need the money right now, dont do it. Feed the family, but you can focus your uploads aggressively elsewhere and bring more balance.

I admit it's a really hard decision to make as to which direction to go. Money is low. One thing's for sure, I won't be submitting anymore content. And I will almost definitely be deactivating my video port and making some clips exclusive on Pond 5. As for my photo port, I'm very much undecided whether I should let it sit there or deactivate it too.

Shelma1

« Reply #478 on: May 31, 2020, 08:23 »
+7
Pavlovsky doesn't get his bonuses if the SS stock doesn't perform, and Oringer loses investment value. 

#ResetPavlovsky #ResetOringer

« Reply #479 on: May 31, 2020, 08:39 »
+9
The only thing left to decide is what time on Sunday to turn off my portfolio on Shutterstock :(

Attagirl.

I decided yesterday morning to go ahead and flip the switch a day earlier than I'd planned. Last month I earned $105 at SS, but I wasn't even going to make payout this month, so no point in dragging it out.

Last night, after all my images had disappeared, I removed that bookmark from my laptop. I won't even visit my dashboard page any more. Nothing to see there anyway.

SS is history for me now. One less site to bother uploading to as I shrink down to three. From now on AS, DT, and P5 will get all my work, and I'm okay with that.

Good luck to you as you face that sad but inevitable moment.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 08:41 by marthamarks »

Snow

« Reply #480 on: May 31, 2020, 08:46 »
+4
Yep, the russian community has excellent and very hard working producers and great solidarity.

Very true! but not exactly who I was referring to if you catch my drift :o
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 08:54 by Snow »

« Reply #481 on: May 31, 2020, 09:21 »
+3
Anyone knows if I still get my payout for May if I disable my images? (I reached the payout limit). I really depend on this, but also I can not stand aside and do nothing.

I appreciate if anyone knows the answer and sorry if it was already posted, I might have missed some comments (there are so many).

PS: I am pissed af


« Reply #482 on: May 31, 2020, 09:23 »
+2
snip

Do they really expect people just to say  "10 cents? cool. Thanks!" and accept it?


Many will.

« Reply #483 on: May 31, 2020, 09:25 »
+5
Anyone knows if I still get my payout for May if I disable my images? (I reached the payout limit). I really depend on this, but also I can not stand aside and do nothing.

I appreciate if anyone knows the answer and sorry if it was already posted, I might have missed some comments (there are so many).

PS: I am pissed af


Ethically, you should. But doesnt sound like they are playing fairly. If I were you, Id wait until I got my money.

« Reply #484 on: May 31, 2020, 09:31 »
+8
It is just possibly my computer's cache, or is the number of Shutterstock's image count and new images count not updated anymore? Or does it never get updated on weekends?

I've been realy curious how the announced changes would affect the image count  and kept an eye on it. Since the announcement the number still went up because of newly added images, but since 3 days the number stays at exactly 326.237.838  and new 1.199.139 images added weekly. Since I doubt that number stayed exactly the same for 3 days, I think that maybe Shutterstock disabled the updating of that feature so people could not see how many contributors really disabled their portfolio - unless, as said, it's a cache problem with my computer.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 10:06 by Firn »

Snow

« Reply #485 on: May 31, 2020, 09:34 »
+2
Anyone knows if I still get my payout for May if I disable my images? (I reached the payout limit). I really depend on this, but also I can not stand aside and do nothing.

I appreciate if anyone knows the answer and sorry if it was already posted, I might have missed some comments (there are so many).

PS: I am pissed af

To my knowledge you will only lose your payout if you are below the $35 dollar threshold or below your payout setting and have disabled your images and/or video portfolio so in your case you should have nothing to worry about.

Snow

« Reply #486 on: May 31, 2020, 09:46 »
+2
Anyone knows if I still get my payout for May if I disable my images? (I reached the payout limit). I really depend on this, but also I can not stand aside and do nothing.

I appreciate if anyone knows the answer and sorry if it was already posted, I might have missed some comments (there are so many).

PS: I am pissed af


Ethically, you should. But doesnt sound like they are playing fairly. If I were you, Id wait until I got my money.

Well changing royalties or removing bad press is one thing, not paying what they owe us is another and I am sure they know better then to take that route!

« Reply #487 on: May 31, 2020, 09:53 »
+4
It is just possibly my computer's cache, or is the number of Shutterstock's image count and new images cunt not updated anymore? Or does it never get updated on weekends?

I've been realy curious how the announced changes would affect the image count  and kept an eye on it. Since the announcement the number still went up because of newly added images, but since 3 days the number stays at exactly 326.237.838  and new 1.199.139 images added weekly. Since I doubt that number stayed exactly the same for 3 days, I think that maybe Shutterstock disabled the updating of that feature so people could not see how many contributors really disabled their portfolio - unless, as said, it's a cache problem with my computer.

Yes, i think it's showing the exact same number for days now..  suspicious

« Reply #488 on: May 31, 2020, 10:04 »
+2
The time to stand up to SS was long ago... Why anyone is surprised at these actions, is beyond me. I tried to set off alarm bells long ago and was met with a great deal of push back & disdain.

SS/JO = Pure greed and nothing more... Actions have shown for many years; that they do NOT value contributors! Contribute to SS @ your own peril.

« Reply #489 on: May 31, 2020, 10:14 »
+5
The time to stand up to SS was long ago... Why anyone is surprised at these actions, is beyond me. I tried to set off alarm bells long ago and was met with a great deal of push back & disdain.

SS/JO = Pure greed and nothing more... Actions have shown for many years; that they do NOT value contributors! Contribute to SS @ your own peril.

Everybody has a different tipping point, it was Shutterstocks job to manage that so it didn't all go tits up at the same point, this time they failed.

Snow

« Reply #490 on: May 31, 2020, 10:36 »
+3
The time to stand up to SS was long ago... Why anyone is surprised at these actions, is beyond me. I tried to set off alarm bells long ago and was met with a great deal of push back & disdain.

SS/JO = Pure greed and nothing more... Actions have shown for many years; that they do NOT value contributors! Contribute to SS @ your own peril.

Oh many of us already knew, no doubt about it. It's just that the money was still good.
Times have changed though and there is a new player in town, well actually two players AS and P5 that could take over their place, filling the financial gap SS would create. This process will take some time however but is very possible to achieve.
That is if Adobe and P5 are still interested in us and ready to take advantage of the situation that will benefit both them and us.
It could all go very smooth but it's in our nature to always make things very difficult.



« Reply #491 on: May 31, 2020, 10:57 »
+4
The time to stand up to SS was long ago... Why anyone is surprised at these actions, is beyond me. I tried to set off alarm bells long ago and was met with a great deal of push back & disdain.

SS/JO = Pure greed and nothing more... Actions have shown for many years; that they do NOT value contributors! Contribute to SS @ your own peril.

Everybody has a different tipping point, it was Shutterstocks job to manage that so it didn't all go tits up at the same point, this time they failed.

Yes the tipping point for me occurred in 2015. The choices Jon made to drive down the value of our content, to gain market share; a strategy key SS admin admitted to publicly in financial reports; convinced me that they were no longer supportable. The extreme damage SS purposely caused to the entire industry, should not be given a pass.

Quote from: XXX
You mean like XXX when he was the self appointed rep. for XXX. SS was smart enough to steer clear of that. They must read forums and see how some people are high risk. Yourself included for your never ending attack on anything SS.

I don't feel the need to trash talk XXX, I tell him what I believe when we disagree. We have butted heads here on the MSG forums many times, but over the last year I think he has done a good job of showing respect to me and other people here on the boards. We frequently agree and disagree and I think that is healthy.

As for your comment about me, I will take your comment as a compliment. If I were going to promote any company as a "Community Leader". I would need to be able to look each person I attracted to join thru the position in the eye and feel that the investment in time, talent, and funds they would personally choose to make, as a result of my involvement; would be beneficial to them in the long term.

Rather than take things at face value when shutterstock went public, I spent time to find out where we stand as contributors. I have taken the time to find out who joined shutterstock as key business decision makers; as a result of the IPO. And I take time to read the financial reports and PR shutterstock is producing to attract investors. I think this is important for my own port, because shutterstock's key business insiders determine the future value of the assets we produce. And because they hold a large share of the market their business decisions, also affect the value of our assets on other micro & macro sites.

As a result of my research, I would not choose to be a Community Leader at a company that chooses to devalue our assets to gain market share. I would choose the welfare of my friends & colleges over any monetary or others benefits I might gain any day.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 11:01 by gbalex »


Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #492 on: May 31, 2020, 12:01 »
+2
I wrote a blog post about this royalty cut so there is a collection of thoughts all together - things get very spread apart in long topics like this.

https://www.digitalbristles.com/shutterstock-bombshell-royalty-cut-june-1st/

The only thing left to decide is what time on Sunday to turn off my portfolio on Shutterstock :(

Nice blog post and an interesting history lesson!

« Reply #493 on: May 31, 2020, 12:54 »
+2
Anyone knows if I still get my payout for May if I disable my images? (I reached the payout limit). I really depend on this, but also I can not stand aside and do nothing.

I appreciate if anyone knows the answer and sorry if it was already posted, I might have missed some comments (there are so many).

PS: I am pissed af

To my knowledge you will only lose your payout if you are below the $35 dollar threshold or below your payout setting and have disabled your images and/or video portfolio so in your case you should have nothing to worry about.

Thank you. I decided to take the risk. Let's hope for the best.

« Reply #494 on: May 31, 2020, 13:32 »
+8
If a subscriber uses half of the downloads allowed, the commission paid out to contributors from this subscriber will be half of the numbers posted by Shutterstock.
So in this case, if you are at tier 1 you will receive 7.5%, and if you are tier 6 you will receive 20%.
I think you are misleading : the percentages are fixed (they are what SS says they are) BUT it is the price per file which varies whether the subscription is used in its entirety or not. That's the tricky point !

I don't think it is misleading at all. You will be receiving 7.5% in any meaningful way. What is misleading is saying we will receive 15%.

Otherwise what would 100% constitute? How can we be receiving 15% if for example SS is receiving 13X (roughly in the above example) what we receive? It makes no sense and is just smoke and mirrors.

That's why a core demand has to be that % must mean percentage of what has actually been paid for that license or everything else goes out of the window. We wont even have a foundation to negotiate from and packages can be manipulate to s**ew us on an ongoing basis.

That and the January reset has to go. For top tier contributor that will mean a more than 50% pay cut from December to January. Honestly that can only have been though up by millionaires who have no idea how we peons survive in the real world.

I really believe this is important to understand: The real commission percentages are not fixed even though most contributors talk about them as if they were. Here is an example to illustrate this point:

A client buys a subscription for 199$ per month that allows up to 350 image downloads per month. That is 2388 $ per year, with up to 4200 image downloads allowed.

Consider case 1 where this client uses all downloads. The client has in this case paid 0.57$ per image. At tier 1, 15% would give the contributor 0.085$ per image. But since Shutterstock has set a minimum of 0.10$ pr image you will actually be getting 18% at tier 1. At tier 6, 40% results in 0.23$ pr image download for the contributor.

Now consider case 2 where this client only downloaded 10% of the maximum allowed images. The client has in this case paid 5.69 $ per image. At tier 1, if the commission was truly 15%, contributors should receive 0.85$ per image download on average. At tier 6, 40%, the contributors should receive 2.27$ per image download on average. But this is not how the contributors will be compensated in this case. Instead they will be paid exactly the same amount as in case 1, resulting in an effective average real commission percentage of 0.10/5.69 = 1.8% at tier 1 and 0.23/5.69  = 4% real commission percentage at tier 6.

The truth is that the average probably is somewhere between case 1 and case 2.

Subscriptions are, from a revenue perspective, designed in a way that takes into account that the average client does not download the full amount allowed. Why are we pretending that they do when calculating and talking about contributor commissions? Agencies with this type of commission model have an incentive to push clients towards the products with the largest difference between maximum allowed downloads and actual downloads used by the clients. This way, the agency will pay a lower real commission percentage to the contributor. In practice, this means pushing clients away from smaller image packages and towards larger subscriptions. 

The table may be a fine way to explain how the commissions are calculated, but the percentages at each tier simply does not represent the real commission percentage contributors will receive. This is a fact. Contributors will receive less in commission than the numbers in the table indicate. I dont see how this can be up for debate.

« Reply #495 on: May 31, 2020, 13:37 »
+6
It is always a tough decision to take a stance, specially if in the short term your earnings will suffer s trong hit when you walk away. But somehow self esteem is more important at the end of the day. There is nothing worse than to work with or for a company that disrespects your work.

I am still image exclusive with Getty. At the time they started messing up with contributors I was making 11000$/month so it was difficult to go away. Even so when I went down to 5000$/month a left exclusivity for a few month and uploaded aggresively to many other outlets to see if it would compensate sucha move. I saw quickly that it would take quite a while to arrive to those numbers so I went back to the crown. Since then my income has fluctuated from 3k to 4.5k from images there.

Two years ago I decided to jump to video production and of course went non exclusive(past lesson learned) and started with any option above 30% for the contributor. That meant not a single video of the 3000 ones I have made to Getty. I have focused my energies to footage as I am no longer motivated to produce expensive photo shoots that don't get valued. I don't care of the lost revenue not selling through them. At one point you have to recognize those that treat you with respect. Not doing so is accepting mistreatment and an invitation that other follow course.

Now Shutterstock has gone down the same road. For the time being I have disabled my portfolio. If they don't backtrack still have no made my mind yet but probably:

1- Will not uploaded new content nor a single file more to them.
2- Editorial footage as it is not on Adobe will be deleted and put as Pond5 exclsuive.
3- Depending on sales of Adobe P5 exclusive and other outlets delete forever what is at Shutter and close permanently my account.

What is for sure is that once an agency makes such moves with so much desdain for their contributors (such a drastic royalty reduction, only silence from their directive and support team, attacking directly contributors disabling portfolios,etc) only bad thing lie ahead in the future. Get out as soon as you can to minimize loses, pain and embarrasement to be part of a lousy company.

+ Attachments and other options
 

« Reply #496 on: May 31, 2020, 13:59 »
+2
If a subscriber uses half of the downloads allowed, the commission paid out to contributors from this subscriber will be half of the numbers posted by Shutterstock.
So in this case, if you are at tier 1 you will receive 7.5%, and if you are tier 6 you will receive 20%.
I think you are misleading : the percentages are fixed (they are what SS says they are) BUT it is the price per file which varies whether the subscription is used in its entirety or not. That's the tricky point !

I don't think it is misleading at all. You will be receiving 7.5% in any meaningful way. What is misleading is saying we will receive 15%.

Otherwise what would 100% constitute? How can we be receiving 15% if for example SS is receiving 13X (roughly in the above example) what we receive? It makes no sense and is just smoke and mirrors.

That's why a core demand has to be that % must mean percentage of what has actually been paid for that license or everything else goes out of the window. We wont even have a foundation to negotiate from and packages can be manipulate to s**ew us on an ongoing basis.

That and the January reset has to go. For top tier contributor that will mean a more than 50% pay cut from December to January. Honestly that can only have been though up by millionaires who have no idea how we peons survive in the real world.

I really believe this is important to understand: The real commission percentages are not fixed even though most contributors talk about them as if they were. Here is an example to illustrate this point:

A client buys a subscription for 199$ per month that allows up to 350 image downloads per month. That is 2388 $ per year, with up to 4200 image downloads allowed.

Consider case 1 where this client uses all downloads. The client has in this case paid 0.57$ per image. At tier 1, 15% would give the contributor 0.085$ per image. But since Shutterstock has set a minimum of 0.10$ pr image you will actually be getting 18% at tier 1. At tier 6, 40% results in 0.23$ pr image download for the contributor.

Now consider case 2 where this client only downloaded 10% of the maximum allowed images. The client has in this case paid 5.69 $ per image. At tier 1, if the commission was truly 15%, contributors should receive 0.85$ per image download on average. At tier 6, 40%, the contributors should receive 2.27$ per image download on average. But this is not how the contributors will be compensated in this case. Instead they will be paid exactly the same amount as in case 1, resulting in an effective average real commission percentage of 0.10/5.69 = 1.8% at tier 1 and 0.23/5.69  = 4% real commission percentage at tier 6.

The truth is that the average probably is somewhere between case 1 and case 2.

Subscriptions are, from a revenue perspective, designed in a way that takes into account that the average client does not download the full amount allowed. Why are we pretending that they do when calculating and talking about contributor commissions? Agencies with this type of commission model have an incentive to push clients towards the products with the largest difference between maximum allowed downloads and actual downloads used by the clients. This way, the agency will pay a lower real commission percentage to the contributor. In practice, this means pushing clients away from smaller image packages and towards larger subscriptions. 

The table may be a fine way to explain how the commissions are calculated, but the percentages at each tier simply does not represent the real commission percentage contributors will receive. This is a fact. Contributors will receive less in commission than the numbers in the table indicate. I dont see how this can be up for debate.
Took some time but i understood it this time. So obviously shutterstock has everything to gain in this game while we stay "occupied" with 10c, sales since they get us closer to a higher level and hopefully more payout. Talk about chasing a mirage

All the while they "upgrade" consumers to higher size subscription packs telling us that its so we can increase volume so you can get to the 40% faster

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk


« Reply #497 on: May 31, 2020, 14:14 »
0

« Reply #498 on: May 31, 2020, 15:19 »
+2
Look fake people with no portfolio are popping up on the SS forum telling us all we are worthless scum.

Now that will surely influence the producer community and make them go on their knees and back to uploading the ungrateful brats!

How dare we doubt SS! Everything they do, they do for us!

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/100/


Im good with SS new earnings change, I trust Shutterstock that they had no other choice but to do it, I have zero respect for contributors trashing Shutterstock online, on social media and in this forum and I think everyone that does it should be banned for life from SS.

Show some respect for the guys that put in tons of work for you to have a platform to sell your work in times when its heading straight to Unlimited free downloads, SS is doing its best to provide good sales EVERY SINGLE DAY !

Chill ! The entire world is on its knees with all this Corona Virus and you go around shaming SS ????????? Calling to ban them ????

10 cents minimus per sub? Work hard, be original, explore and I guarantee youll make 1 million sales a year. WORK HARD !  Work Harder !

90% of the negative comments here are from small lazy portfolios, SS Said in the email they want to reward hard working contributors and this is a great idea.

If youre here to make money, there is plenty! Plenty to make, Just put in the effort.

What other choice did SS have ? take a deep breath and think about it, look around, read the map and thank god every morning for SS.

People started posting financial reports (I read all of them when they come out) stating they have this much and that much, I wish SS will go back to the glory days of higher stock price, they deserve it, its an amazing platform with amazing people putting an amazing amount of hard work for you to be able to do what you love and get paid on time and run it like clock work. SHOW SOME RESPECT !

And for the love of god, the Levels are perfectly balanced, wanna go level 6? Do you want SS to create a level 7 just for you? WORK FOR IT !

I think SS should remove any account that also sell at these unlimited sites, that is giving SS a bad name.

Long live SHUTTERSTOCK, a fair, welcoming and professional company.

Shutterstock is doing the right thing for them and for US.

 

I dont work for SS (I wish I did, honestly).

I dont know anyone that works for SS.

I am a contributor just like you, Not a top contributor but not a small one.



😄

« Reply #499 on: May 31, 2020, 15:25 »
+3
Now might be a lovely time to re-read their blog post about their sumptuous new headquarters in the Empire State building



I encourage anyone's social media shaming of these greedy jerks to go heavy on the contrast between their luxury real estate in one of the world's most expensive markets and how they're trying to squeeze the small businesses who supply them. During a pandemic no less - to add a rich layer of icing on the cake!

Do a search for #ShutterstockESB on twitter to see the "Silicon Alley" elite at play in their new space... Especially sickening in light of the new royalty scheme

It is not like we did not have advanced warning... it has been clear for a very long time that SS does not value its contributors. All we needed to do is pay attention to their actions over the long term. And yet we continued to give them the benefit of the doubt time after time; while they continued to let us know who they are via their choices.

We need to ask ourselves... do we value ourselves & our work. I have not contributed to SS for some time and they will never get another creative from me.

https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2013-financial-results/msg366316/#msg366316


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
87 Replies
33278 Views
Last post July 24, 2006, 06:01
by GeoPappas
21 Replies
7254 Views
Last post May 04, 2006, 08:28
by leaf
14 Replies
6657 Views
Last post March 19, 2008, 14:47
by vonkara
106 Replies
26384 Views
Last post October 04, 2014, 07:33
by Hobostocker
19 Replies
9775 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