Post by: Daryl Ray on May 26, 2020, 10:37
"In the coming weeks, Shutterstock will be updating the earnings structure that determines how much you get paid when customers license your work. We are making this adjustment in order to reflect changes in the market for creative content, help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward performance with greater earnings potential.
How does it work?
• These new levels are based on the number of times your content is licensed rather than your lifetime earnings.
• All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.
• There are separate levels for images and for videos, and you graduate through them independently based on your download count in each category.
Stay tuned for updates that include tips to help you quickly climb to the higher levels!
Thank you,
Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations "
Post by: beketoff on May 26, 2020, 10:43
What I didn't understanding from that email is whether the new pay rate percentages will apply also to subscriptions sales (for which we now receive a fixed pay based on lifetime earnings). If that's the case, I already see 0.03 cents sales as with Istock.
Post by: Thomas from France on May 26, 2020, 10:43
Post by: Snow on May 26, 2020, 10:43
Post by: THP Creative on May 26, 2020, 10:45
iStock 2.0 alright.
The corporate greed strategy seems to be the same no matter what the company name is.
Post by: anon20200611 on May 26, 2020, 10:46
Previously, they paid an average contributor like me, something like a 30% for my work. Now they will pay me a month in 25%, 3-4 months in 30% (same as before) and 7-8 months in 35%. So basically, this seems like an increase to me. People that have under 100 dl's per year and "threaten" to pull their ports ... well sorry to say guys but you didn't really work for stock. How can an active contributor with four digits of Shutterstock income pull their port out of SS? These words would never come from someone that knows how to work.
The only way to see if SS is unfair with this new system is to put in the test. It's very easy to calculate your average / dl. Just take the total earnings and divide them with total dl's. For me this number right now is 0,643 average per download on my IMAGE portfolio (not vector or video). Istock is a lot lower than that, because Istock only pays a ridiculous percentage for non exclusive and that's why they receive only a fraction of my images TWO years after like a "back catalogue".
So, that's that. I would agree more if SS decided for a rolling 12 month system instead of the January reset though. I think it complicates things without need. These 100 first dl's ... from 1 million contributors ... well it's up to 100.000.000 dl's they will sell with lower % on contributor profits. This, for them is scalable. And for contributors it's not. And that's why I disagree with the January reset and would promote the idea of a rolling 12 month system. But even that, it doesn't mean that I will protest or sign petitions before I see real proof in numbers as to what is actually happening.
Regards to everyone
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 26, 2020, 10:46
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
Post by: thx9000 on May 26, 2020, 10:46
p.s
Wonder how this will affect subs too since it's not explicitly stated in the mail
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 10:47
i am at 38 cent now, how much is 35% of what? nobody knows what a single image earns.
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on May 26, 2020, 10:48
Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 26, 2020, 10:49
This is worse, much, much worse than IStock. They don't even base it off a trailing 12 months total or anything. I guess no one pays their mortgage or rent for January February then? Hope everyone has very understanding banks/ landlords.
EDIT: Sorry I was typing when you posted
EDIT: to clarify, the method is worse than IS, though of course the levels are much better for us
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 10:52
Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
INFUCKINGSANE
Post by: BigLeague on May 26, 2020, 10:52
Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
I also was wondering that, is January 15% for everyone?
Post by: thx9000 on May 26, 2020, 10:52
As a quota for the next year, not for the current, at least that's how I understand it. That mail is really lacking...Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 26, 2020, 10:54
Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
I also was wondering that, is January 15% for everyone?
Correct, it's actually pretty clear, but my brain couldn't comprehend as it is also BATS**T INSANE
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 10:54
Post by: eyeidea on May 26, 2020, 10:55
Post by: Zero Talent on May 26, 2020, 10:56
I am level 5 on photos, so until next year, I may see some increase from photos (pending clarification on how subs and ODDs will be impacted)
On the other hand, I'm only level 3 on videos and I'll be losing here for a while, until next January disaster!
Not happy!
>:(
Post by: Cider Apple on May 26, 2020, 10:58
Post by: eyeidea on May 26, 2020, 10:59
I can't believe that video download numbers for each level is the same as images. what? Video contributors are going to have the roughest end of this shite system.
This.
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:01
I can't believe that video download numbers for each level is the same as images. what? Video contributors are going to have the roughest end of this shite system.
didnt even realise, just checked again, you are right, thats INFUCKINGSANE
Post by: tpack on May 26, 2020, 11:02
Post by: BigLeague on May 26, 2020, 11:02
Its the usual squeeze.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 26, 2020, 11:04
1. They reset to the lowest rate Jan 1 each year
2. It's unit sales not $$, so videos, subscriptions and the SOD high value licenses count the same. Imagine getting one of the high value SODs in January, and instead of $102 you get $51 (because you're at 15% versus 30%)
3. Video is really hosed as their units are the same as image units, but typically (at least in the past) videos sold fewer but at a high royalty. Contributors who do both have to earn royalty rates separately.
4.
For now, we can turn off our portfolios without removing content, although that may not survive this slash and burn maneuver. As I'm already at my 30% rate (what I've been earning so far), I'd have nothing to lose in the long term by turning off content - if I were to choose to try and protest this despicable cash grab by the new CEO
I'm not surprised, but I am angry. I'll wait a bit for the formal announcement before deciding what to do.
Tossers.
Edited to add that they've posted updated tables (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/) for video numbers - the email was apparently in error and had the same numbers for both.
Subscription payouts will be percentages of unit cost as if the entire download allotment was used with a minimum of 10 cents (they added another clarification to their forum announcement)
Shutterstock keeps any money from unused download allotments and does not share with contributors
To add some numbers to this, I looked at my earnings in Dec 2019 and April 2020 to see what the difference would be with the new payments. December earnings were higher and had a larger proportion of non-subscription downloads. April had a higher proportion of subscription downloads.
For December 2019 my subscription earnings dropped 74% which led my overall earnings to drop 24%. For April 2020, the same earnings percentage decrease for subs led to a 35% drop in the monthly total.
Bottom line is that it would be really really hard to do anything with uploads that would make up for such a huge drop in income (and I'm images only, no video). Even at a 40% royalty rate, the best subscription royalty you get on the 350 or 750 subscription products is 23 cents - 15 cents less than we used to make
If all the above weren't enough, there is a new subscription plan even cheaper than the annual commitment/monthly billing version - you pay for the year up front and get a bigger discount. For 750 a month, cost per image is 22 cents (6.6 cents royalty at 30%, i.e. 10 cents) and for 350 a month it costs 39 cents per image - a princely 11.7 cents royalty!
And to think that just last year they were celebrating $1 billion in contributor payouts (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/1-billion-contributor-earnings) - they are world class jerks
Post by: Morphart on May 26, 2020, 11:04
RESET TO RANK 1 each January... then they arrange with big clients to sell large licenses and enhanced licensed while we are at tier 1 and get only 15%?
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:05
As a quota for the next year, not for the current, at least that's how I understand it. That mail is really lacking...Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
so you get paid the level of the previous year performance, not start from level 1? if thats the case its not too bad. they do need to CLARIFY that ASAP then before someone burns down their office
Post by: m on May 26, 2020, 11:06
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 11:08
Post by: Morphart on May 26, 2020, 11:08
This is worse than both iStock and 123rf.
1. The reset to the lowest rate Jan 1 each year
2. It's unit sales not $$, so videos, subscriptions and the SOD high value licenses count the same. Imagine getting one of the high value SODs in January, and instead of $102 you get $51 (because you're at 15% versus 30%)
3. Video is really hosed as their units are the same as image units, but typically (at least in the past) videos sold fewer but at a high royalty
4. Not clear what happens to subscription payments - are they a percentage now or still a rate table. As their enterprise business is shrinking (last two earnings calls) but the "e-commerce" business - subscriptions - is growing, they'd gain quite a lot by cutting our royalties there.
For now, we can turn off our portfolios without removing content, although that may not survive this slash and burn maneuver. As I'm already at my 30% rate (what I've been earning so far), I'd have nothing to lose in the long term by turning off content - if I were to choose to try and protest this despicable cash grab by the new CEO
I'm not surprised, but I am angry. I'll wait a bit for the formal announcement before deciding what to do.
Tossers.
Exactly my thoughts, was asking myself the same question. Reset to rank 1 on January could mean losing on enhanced and special license sales... more so if Shutterstock schemes to sell those in January... and they have not specified anything about the subscription which is the license we sell the most... and videos... sales already dropped, but now it doesn't make any sense uploading more videos, no way to get 2500 sales a year for most.
Post by: increasingdifficulty on May 26, 2020, 11:09
I can't believe that video download numbers for each level is the same as images. what? Video contributors are going to have the roughest end of this shite system.
Don't worry, if you sell more than 5,214 video clips per year you will actually start making more! Great news!
I'm sure there are lots of contributors selling more than 434 clips per month. :)
For everyone else, a cut, and for most, a significant cut.
Post by: blamb on May 26, 2020, 11:09
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:09
Post by: Morphart on May 26, 2020, 11:10
As a quota for the next year, not for the current, at least that's how I understand it. That mail is really lacking...Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
so you get paid the level of the previous year performance, not start from level 1? if thats the case its not too bad. they do need to CLARIFY that ASAP then before someone burns down their office
Don't hope for that, it's clearly stated in the email:
All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.
Post by: duben on May 26, 2020, 11:10
Well top agencies and biggest contributors and photo/videa farms with selling more than 2500-25000 will get 35% and 25000+ sells even 40%. But not that easy to get there, as they split foto & video. You want to get 40% for both? You have to sell 50.000+ together 25k+ photo and 25k+ video each year.
I am quite angry because of this. I will get less for photos 25% instead of 28% and 15% instead of 30% for video.
Reset every year instead of keeping some average, or floating average for last 12 months is extremly nasty. So every January Shutterstock will get more many even from biggest contributors and pay you minimum for first sells.
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:11
maybe a counter reset, but not an earnings level reset?As a quota for the next year, not for the current, at least that's how I understand it. That mail is really lacking...Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
so you get paid the level of the previous year performance, not start from level 1? if thats the case its not too bad. they do need to CLARIFY that ASAP then before someone burns down their office
Don't hope for that, it's clearly stated in the email:
All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.
if you start the year at 15%, bwhahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, what a bunch of fucktards
Post by: thx9000 on May 26, 2020, 11:15
Post by: theendup on May 26, 2020, 11:17
Post by: trabuco on May 26, 2020, 11:17
Post by: anon20200611 on May 26, 2020, 11:18
The maximum % Shutterstock was paying before, was 30%. So now I can see (I am a level 4-5 for most time of the year) that my % will be 30% by February (same as before) and 35% from May or June. But as I was protected before with a minimum 0.38c per download, now it depends on the type of client that buys my image.
But let's calculate how much the client will pay:
If it's a customer of 750/month annual billed upfront the price is ($0.22/image) - 35% of that is 0,07cents
If it's a customer of 10/month no contract, billed monthly the price is ($4.9/image) - 35% of that is 1,71cents
I think I could accept to prefer it like this. Most customers are small producers / blog writers that sometimes need only just a few images. How many customers actually would actually go for the highest tiers?
The reset is only for 100dls. My 400-500 dls per month send me very fast to level 4 and 30%. They are basically looking to kill the income of inactive contributors that are in decline but highest tier, while the clients may pay as low as $0.22/image.
If I was them, I would do the same. Do we really need to complain about it if we are active contributors?
Post by: r2d2 on May 26, 2020, 11:20
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
Post by: wollwerth on May 26, 2020, 11:20
Post by: stephano on May 26, 2020, 11:21
Post by: angelawaye on May 26, 2020, 11:22
Post by: suz7 on May 26, 2020, 11:23
I'm at level 3 for images, and that number is right.
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 11:24
Very few will sell enough to get into the top tier.
Currently EVERYONE gets 30% of videos. From january initially everyone is going to get 15%.
A low-mid video contributor may sell 10 videos a month? That means they're on 15% until November or so then only up to 20% by year end and getting reset back down to 15%.
How many people sell 2500+ videos a year? Very vew. How many sell 25,000+ a year? even fewer.
So for most people its an immediate cut of 5% minimum then a massive cut in january.
Post by: cloudvisual on May 26, 2020, 11:25
You've got to hope for a good start to the year to have any chance of getting the 30% you were used to in February. Obviously for the 0.1% they'll be enjoying the riches of a 40% cut in no time, whilst everyone else who is slaving away and trying to reinvest stock money into trips will be having to save up a little longer, perhaps not even seeing the 30% tier given how the exponential sales targets are.
Post by: increasingdifficulty on May 26, 2020, 11:28
In my email it said I was at level 2 for video - I have not had anywhere near as many downloads this year as it says. Are they softening the blow, by letting me stay a level above? I mean it's still a big dip in percentage. Awful
I'm at level 3 for images, and that number is right.
Yes, my level was incorrect also. We can only hope that the video levels were not correct in the e-mail (just mistakenly copied from the images table), and maybe only 5-10% of the number of image downloads would apply to video. It would make more sense.
UPDATE:
Yes, the video levels were wrong in the e-mail. The right ones are in the Shutterstock forum.
You still need 5,214 sales or more to not make less.
Post by: Noedelhap on May 26, 2020, 11:30
Corporate greed in these trying times where almost every photographer, videographer and illustrator is fighting to survive this bad economic depression. Those immoral *insult removed* grab the last crumbs off your table and don't even have the guts to say sorry.
It's reprehensible behaviour and a testament to their despicable ethics.
Thank you, Stan Pavlovsky. Hope you enjoy your new yacht.
Edit: and Paul Brennan of course, who is equally guilty of this cash grab.
Post by: Astrantia on May 26, 2020, 11:32
That makes 15 % of 8,95 € for a video.
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:33
Look at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 11:34
The email has videos the same as images. The forum post has videos being 1 stage lower than images. Which is still bad.
I cant wait for my first 15% of a $10 4k video subscription sale in January.
Post by: Shelma1 on May 26, 2020, 11:34
Unless we all turn off our ports this will be it...although I’m not sure how much of an impact even that action will have, since they’ve been purposely approving zillions of similar junk images from factories en masse while simultaneously handing out rejections to individual contributors.
I guess that was the plan, they waited until most sales went to image factories and wouldn’t have a huge impact if we all quit, and the writing was on the wall.
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:35
Guys I did some math and maybe it's not worth to panic so much. The % actually seems to increase I think and give some motivation for higher contribution.why punish inactive contributors? the images will remain available for download, so no one is gaining by hurting inactive contributors. and they already have a gazillion images, of which 50% is utter garbish or duplicate. this new earnings structure will not fix any of that
The maximum % Shutterstock was paying before, was 30%. So now I can see (I am a level 4-5 for most time of the year) that my % will be 30% by February (same as before) and 35% from May or June. But as I was protected before with a minimum 0.38c per download, now it depends on the type of client that buys my image.
But let's calculate how much the client will pay:
If it's a customer of 750/month annual billed upfront the price is ($0.22/image) - 35% of that is 0,07cents
If it's a customer of 10/month no contract, billed monthly the price is ($4.9/image) - 35% of that is 1,71cents
I think I could accept to prefer it like this. Most customers are small producers / blog writers that sometimes need only just a few images. How many customers actually would actually go for the highest tiers?
The reset is only for 100dls. My 400-500 dls per month send me very fast to level 4 and 30%. They are basically looking to kill the income of inactive contributors that are in decline but highest tier, while the clients may pay as low as $0.22/image.
If I was them, I would do the same. Do we really need to complain about it if we are active contributors?
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:36
This is horrible news! To go from earning .38 cents to .15 cents every January will really affect my earnings.where did you get 15 cent from?
Post by: everest on May 26, 2020, 11:37
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 11:38
This likely explains why we have different levels. They couldnt even be bothered to proof read one of these.
Post by: georgep7 on May 26, 2020, 11:38
What is this five days notice? Can images be deleted from port after those days?
Thank you.
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 11:39
Post by: r2d2 on May 26, 2020, 11:40
Look at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 11:46
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
Post by: r2d2 on May 26, 2020, 11:53
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
hours? ;D If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them... :-*
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 11:53
So for higher volume sub sales, people are going to get $0.03 or $0.06 per image. Instead of potentially $0.38 now.
Post by: thx9000 on May 26, 2020, 11:54
Don't hope for that, it's clearly stated in the email:As a quota for the next year, not for the current, at least that's how I understand it. That mail is really lacking...Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
"All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st."
so you get paid the level of the previous year performance, not start from level 1? if thats the case its not too bad. they do need to CLARIFY that ASAP then before someone burns down their office
All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.
Something in the SS forum announcement that is missing from the mail:
"On June 1, you will be placed in an Image Level and a Video Level based on your download count so far in 2020. The email you receive today will let you know which levels you are in as of this morning"
So it's back to square one every year for everyone. I was wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Post by: henri on May 26, 2020, 11:59
So, does anyone know what are the current percentages?
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 12:05
But the main hit is the sub reduction.
Looking at a 75% reduction in income from subs.
Post by: anon20200611 on May 26, 2020, 12:09
why punish inactive contributors? the images will remain available for download, so no one is gaining by hurting inactive contributors. and they already have a gazillion images, of which 50% is utter garbish or duplicate. this new earnings structure will not fix any of that
Because they don't care about inactive contributors. The images are already up, they don't have anything more to gain from their work, and their old photos hardly sell as good as they used to anymore and keeping them in the database only costs more money to store in the servers.
So a client that pays 0.22 for such an image and ss is obliged to pay 0.38 for it as minimum quota ... I believe you understand.
But I think it would be better if it was a rolling 12 months anyway and not mess up the whole system every January.
Post by: anon20200611 on May 26, 2020, 12:11
https://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts
But the main hit is the sub reduction.
Looking at a 75% reduction in income from subs.
What makes you think that all SS customers are in the 750 plan billed yearly paid upfront - that pays 0,07. I also buy stock and it's very usual that I buy on demand or 10 image sub that would pay 1,71 per sub on a level 5 (35%). So I think that there are many customers like this and it could be possibly an upgrade.
We will all just keep contributing and see what happens.
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 12:13
Post by: targoszstock on May 26, 2020, 12:18
Spreadsheet with some numbers you might be interested in
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-wNMUw8ITyNtCnsjiMUYCQQ0hEdlvCBDyTtJuxEgDk/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I-wNMUw8ITyNtCnsjiMUYCQQ0hEdlvCBDyTtJuxEgDk/edit?usp=sharing)
Post by: cloudvisual on May 26, 2020, 12:20
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
hours? ;D If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them... :-*
The company is worth almost $1.5b. You have no idea how little impact you'd have on them. By the time you'd found and clicked an advert they'd have probably made $5-10k in sales.
Just to go into more detail. If it was possible that you could click one of their ads once per second and it cost them exactly $1 per click, doing this 24/7 - 365, it would take 31 years to reach a $1b in clicks.
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:24
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:25
Post by: whosvegas on May 26, 2020, 12:26
https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing (https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing)
The price of an subscription image can be (in Euro, i live in the Netherlands):
4,90 to 0,27 per image
15%
0,735 to 0,0405
The 0,04 is bad, but 0,73 is a lot more the $0,25 for a subscription
I will wait to see what's going to happen
Post by: r2d2 on May 26, 2020, 12:27
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
hours? ;D If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them... :-*
The company is worth almost $1.5b. You have no idea how little impact you'd have on them. By the time you'd found and clicked an advert they'd have probably made $5-10k in sales.
Just to go into more detail. If it was possible that you could click one of their ads once per second and it cost them exactly $1 per click, doing this 24/7 - 365, it would take 31 years to reach a $1b in clicks.
it only works if many contributor will do...
But maybe we better should do nothing ... ;D
Post by: Stu49 on May 26, 2020, 12:28
Some girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
and U believed her ??? ::)
Post by: Nica on May 26, 2020, 12:28
Complains are senseless, they do what the want. Only actions count.
I am not the slave of Stock agencies.
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:29
It is on Shutterstock forum, she is an admin. 10 cents I would like not to believe her.Some girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
and U believed her ??? ::)
Post by: MicroVet on May 26, 2020, 12:30
Some girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
Relief? I hope you're joking!
Getting closer to put my stock +20.000 images for free on the web and ask for donations for those who download them. Soon it won't be worse than having them on stock.
Hope AdobeStock launches a wrecking ball into SS headquarters.
The first step would be to accept editorial content which is a huge part of my SS income, and them promote good exclusivity conditions.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:30
I've been with Shutterstock for 15 years, but if they are in fact going to reset everyone every January 1st, I WILL pull my entire portfolio.
I've already pulled my videos out of SS and AS, gone exclusive to P5.
Now I may pull photos out of SS and keep 'em in AS, P5, and DT.
It's the principle more than the $$$ for me. But truly, this is DISGUSTING!!!
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:31
Of course I'm joking whatSome girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
Relief? I hope you're joking!
Getting closer to put my stock +20.000 images for free on the web and ask for donations for those who download them. Soo it won't be worse than having them on stock.
Hope AdobeStock launches a wrecking ball into SS headquarters.
The first step would be to accept editorial content which is a huge part of my SS income, and them promote good exclusivity conditions.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:31
I am not the slave of Stock agencies.
Me neither!
I left iStock in 2011 when they pulled this same trick. I'll leave SS now if they don't reverse course.
Post by: SID on May 26, 2020, 12:31
I currently have over 80,000 files at Shutterstock and I've been at it for over 15 years.
From a friendly, nice agency, which I had even visited once in my early days and met some nice people there, has become an ugly, greedy agency.
That was unfortunately foreseeable, the flotation announced it.
The steady deterioration since then has already made me delete some files - I once had over 100,000 files with them.
I only have two microstock agencies left anyway.
Now I only have one...
Adobe gets my microstock stuff now exclusively.
If they screw up too, that's it for me in microstock.
Economically simply no longer interesting.
After this move, I wish Shutterstock only the worst.
A slow steady descent.
May the (please insert here the worst insult you know) choke on their greed!
>:(
Post by: Stu49 on May 26, 2020, 12:32
It is on Shutterstock forum, she is an admin. 10 cents I would like not to believe her.Some girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
and U believed her ??? ::)
maybe she was being a bit Katty !? ;) lol
Post by: Cider Apple on May 26, 2020, 12:32
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:32
Will do the same. I hope Adobe is monitoring this closely. It is time to offer photo exclusivity.I've been with Shutterstock for 15 years, but if they are in fact going to reset everyone every January 1st, I WILL pull my entire portfolio.
I've already pulled my videos out of SS and AS, gone exclusive to P5.
Now I may pull photos out of SS and keep 'em in AS, P5, and DT.
It's the principle more than the $$$ for me. But truly, this is DISGUSTING!!!
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:33
What"s wrong with you?It is on Shutterstock forum, she is an admin. 10 cents I would like not to believe her.Some girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
and U believed her ??? ::)
maybe she was being a bit Katty !? ;) lol
Post by: jackboy on May 26, 2020, 12:33
Post by: SherylW on May 26, 2020, 12:33
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:33
Hope AdobeStock launches a wrecking ball into SS headquarters.
The first step would be to accept editorial content which is a huge part of my SS income, and them promote good exclusivity conditions.
Mat, are you listening? Is Adobe?
You guys could capture a *huge* chunk of the market right now by upping the ante for us, continuing to treat us well, and helping us sink SS.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:34
It's time for AS to make good proposals for the contributors. I would be willing to become exclusive with them if they knew how to be attractive enough. And what a pleasure it would be to kick Shutterstock's a**...
Amen!
Mat, over to you and your colleagues at Adobe Stock.
Post by: cloudvisual on May 26, 2020, 12:36
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
hours? ;D If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them... :-*
The company is worth almost $1.5b. You have no idea how little impact you'd have on them. By the time you'd found and clicked an advert they'd have probably made $5-10k in sales.
Just to go into more detail. If it was possible that you could click one of their ads once per second and it cost them exactly $1 per click, doing this 24/7 - 365, it would take 31 years to reach a $1b in clicks.
it only works if many contributor will do...
But maybe we better should do nothing ... ;D
We're not called contributors any longer. I prefer the term Slaves.
And I'm certainly not wasting what's left of my life clicking some ads for a company I already bust a gut over for little in return
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:37
Basically they’re saying a big f*ck you to all individual contributors while rewarding image factories.
Unless we all turn off our ports this will be it...
I will do that for sure. With pleasure!
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:40
Will do the same. I hope Adobe is monitoring this closely. It is time to offer photo exclusivity.
Yes, Mat!!!
Post by: everest on May 26, 2020, 12:40
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:40
Post by: Jogga0 on May 26, 2020, 12:42
Post by: BigLeague on May 26, 2020, 12:42
Post by: trabuco on May 26, 2020, 12:43
Sad news. I will not upload anymore to them.
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 12:43
It is on Shutterstock forum, she is an admin. 10 cents I would like not to believe her.
[/quote]
She contradicted. First post said existing sub fixed fee was going and ALL percentage based.
She then said "minimum 10 cents" which contradicts that.
I asked directly what the MAXIMUM is twice and got no reply....i suspect 10 cents.
So 0.38 down to 0.1 at BEST maybe.
The fact that they introduce this with 5 days warning, have a mistake in the email (video pricing) and dont seemingly have ANY updated earning schedule to show contributors is crazy.
Post by: Chichikov on May 26, 2020, 12:44
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
hours? ;D If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them... :-*
I have a good auto clicker, and a machine that I can dedicate to this work :D :D
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:44
I can see this tip coming. Save some images throughout the year, and dump a LOAD in January to instantly boost your rate. Not good for client and not good for comtributors.I don't think it would help. There is only limited number of downloads monthly. Besides, everybody would do that, even worse scenario.
Post by: pics2 on May 26, 2020, 12:47
It is on Shutterstock forum, she is an admin. 10 cents I would like not to believe her.
She contradicted. First post said existing sub fixed fee was going and ALL percentage based.
She then said "minimum 10 cents" which contradicts that.
I asked directly what the MAXIMUM is twice and got no reply....i suspect 10 cents.
So 0.38 down to 0.1 at BEST maybe.
The fact that they introduce this with 5 days warning, have a mistake in the email (video pricing) and dont seemingly have ANY updated earning schedule to show contributors is crazy.
[/quote]
Yes, I saw your question there. Sadly, she didn't answer. I think she is not capable of running conversation on that forum. AS always, they put young inexperienced people to do dirty job for them
Post by: Chichikov on May 26, 2020, 12:47
Some girl named Katty from Shutterstock just came and said that it will not bi lower than 10 cents, not 3 or 6 cents as we assumed. What a relief.
and U believed her ??? ::)
Kate is just a messenger, it is not her that you should believe or not
Post by: everest on May 26, 2020, 12:47
I have already my best clips on P5 exclusive agreement on a second account where I decide price and get a 60%. This move of disgraceful Shutterstock will only accelerate does.
Create unique content and don't undersell it on abusive agencies like Shutterstock and Getty. You will get far more money in the long run and establish a healthy relationship and be in peace with your minds. Don't feed the beast.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:50
I have a good auto clicker, and a machine that I cane dedicate to this work :D :D
YES!! Please do that, starting right this minute. ;D
Post by: r2d2 on May 26, 2020, 12:52
, and helping us sink SS.
Lets do it:
1. Flooding there buyer support with emails and time wasting questions
2. Upload garbage to them
3. Click there Google ads away
4. Contact them via socialmedia
other ideas welcome!
Post by: Zero Talent on May 26, 2020, 12:55
Post by: Jogga0 on May 26, 2020, 12:56
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 12:58
Yes I would also vote for Adobe exclusivity on a content(not contributor) basis as p5 does. I would stay with those two and never look back to the other mobsters we all know.
I have already my best clips on P5 exclusive agreement on a second account where I decide price and get a 60%. This move of disgraceful Shutterstock will only accelerate does.
Create unique content and don't undersell it on abusive agencies like Shutterstock and Getty. You will get far more money in the long run and establish a healthy relationship and be in peace with your minds. Don't feed the beast.
Amen to everything you said!
This Sunday night, May 31, I will flip the switch at SS to turn off my stills. Wouldn't it be fun if we all did that?
My clips are exclusive now on P5.
Adobe would be my choice to have my pics as content exclusive, but even if they aren't interested in going that route, I will not leave them on SS.
This is the end of the road for SS for me. Their messaging is atrocious. We can't understand what it means for us. The "information" provided on the Forum and via email doesn't match. But the worst thing is dropping such a drastic change on us at the last minute. THAT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.
I'll be outta there Sunday night! Who wants to join me?
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 13:00
Quote
1 hour ago, Kate Shutterstock said:
That's correct. Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time.
The adjustments are being made to align with changes we have been seeing in the global market for creative content. They also help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward performance with greater earnings potential.
Post by: Minsc on May 26, 2020, 13:00
Successful contributors can potentially reach level 5 in a few weeks and reach level 6 in a few months. And extra 5% for the rest of the year would mean successful contributors could earn 1% to 4% extra per year.
For struggling contributors, it's going to cut their earnings by up to around 30%. SS is trying to make extra money off the back of these contributors, which basically make up over 99% of the contributors.
SS is really f'ed up to do something like this.
Post by: dbvirago on May 26, 2020, 13:02
For the last 6 months, sales at Adobe continue to rise while at SS continue to shrink.
The agency that used to command 60% of my income, is barely clinging to 30% while I have done nothing different.
I stopped uploading to IS, but I never thought it would happen here.
While putting everyone on an even playing field, you put yourself there also.
I have been thinking about changing my whole strategy in photography since the first of the year and I think Shutterstock just kicked it off for me.
The low earners may be cheering until they realize it is the large libraries that attract the buyers. And they just gave us no reason to continue here.
Beyond stupid.
Post by: Horizon on May 26, 2020, 13:02
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 13:03
Just turned off sales for both my portfolios in the settings, takes 5 seconds, if things change then I’ll turn them back on otherwise not worth it
I'll do that Sunday night. Not a minute sooner or later.
But I will do it then.
Post by: rcnyc on May 26, 2020, 13:04
Some of you are claiming that SS is being run to the ground. On the contrary, it's the opposite. Let me explain:
All of these tech-based companies are in effect MLM/ pyramid schemes but under the guise of offering you an "equal shot" at earning a living as a freelancer/independent contractor. By that I mean, you may have been promised the moon, stars and the sun, told that if you "worked hard enough" at SS, you could make a lot of money. But like any MLM/pyramid scheme, this was a ruse. The way these companies are structured is that only a few elite contributors/freelancers/etc. always earn the bulk of the money--and revenue--for the company. The vast majority of freelancers, contributors, etc. work like dogs chasing a carrot stick hoping to hit it big but never do. Ironically, it's this vast majority that winds up creating the bulk of the business for the site in the way of contributions, referrals, etc.
This is how microstock, YouTube, Uber, Amazon affiliate program, etc. work. Incentivize a large number of people to work their backsides off to build the business up with "contributions", referrals, etc. promising them huge rewards. However, only give a small tier of people--an elite tier--a bulk of the rewards.
Over time, when these companies have enough "top tier" contributors to keep the business afloat, they start cutting everyone else except those top tier contributors. Except instead of these companies having the guts to go, "We no longer need you low tier contributors anymore, so buh-bye suckers," they take the weasel way out. They make dramatic changes to their payment system purposely designed to get the lowest tier contributors to quit. I guess the equivalent to this in the work world is if a boss too cowardly to fire an employee outright does the passive-aggressive thing of first cutting insurance benefits, then cutting hours, then banishing the person to the late shift.
If you think of pulling out because of this latest change, it would be the right thing to do on principle (I plan to pull out soon myself). But don't think for a second that you'll be "crippling" the company or making a statement. SS implemented these changes precisely to encourage you to pull out. The only reason why you should pull out is out of self respect but not for any other reason.
The point of all of this isn't to deflate anyone's sails but to warn everyone not to put your faith in any of these Silicon Valley companies when it comes to your work. Don't, in other words, think, "Well, let me jump ship to XYZ. It'll be better." All of these companies operate according to this same mindset. If a company looks good now, it's only because it hasn't reached the level of cutting its lowest tier contributors and freelancers loose yet. It will happen, so it's not a question of if but how long you'll be able to enjoy being at a new place before that happens.
Post by: panicAttack on May 26, 2020, 13:04
, and helping us sink SS.
Lets do it:
1. Flooding there buyer support with emails and time wasting questions
2. Upload garbage to them
3. Click there Google ads away
4. Contact them via socialmedia
other ideas welcome!
that's mean nothing to them or anyone else
without union or syndicate which mean creating laws we can't do anything.
Post by: wollwerth on May 26, 2020, 13:08
I'll be doing the same thing. I will shut down both my still and video content. 7000 quality files no longer available. Let the customers sort through millions of s**t files uploaded from India.Just turned off sales for both my portfolios in the settings, takes 5 seconds, if things change then I’ll turn them back on otherwise not worth it
I'll do that Sunday night. Not a minute sooner or later.
But I will do it then.
Post by: dbvirago on May 26, 2020, 13:20
I will be shocked if this doesn't get reversed. I've never seen such a backlash in my 16 years doing this.
Post by: Rage on May 26, 2020, 13:20
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 13:22
Post by: jav on May 26, 2020, 13:24
Post by: daveh900 on May 26, 2020, 13:26
Post by: Fairplay on May 26, 2020, 13:28
I'm ready to disable my portfolio on June 1 if I'm right with my calculations and they don't change their decision.
I hate to say it but if we don't do something now, even AS (which I like very much) will consider cutting our royalties.
Post by: wollwerth on May 26, 2020, 13:30
One person shutting down their portfolio is meaningless. People will not gather up/unionized to pull their pictures off SS. Not sure there's an answer to this mess. I did my Jethro math with what little info SS sent me. I am guessing I may lose 30% to 50% of income from future SS income. That sucks but pulling portfolios off SS is not the answer. Looks like SS for many in the future is just a photo hobby and not a future business. I would think this may hurt the international photographers in third worlds the most. It is still fun taking photos but just a lot less future cash.Self respect is worth more than money.
Post by: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 26, 2020, 13:33
Simple math will say the obvious: bad business
if you consider the cost to make footage, eventually in some or most of cases, you will be paying "passively" to sell your footage. Moreover the reset button is a killer for anyone that wants to invest in doing stock.
all the best for your sales.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 13:35
I'll be doing the same thing. I will shut down both my still and video content. 7000 quality files no longer available. Let the customers sort through millions of s**t files uploaded from India.Just turned off sales for both my portfolios in the settings, takes 5 seconds, if things change then I’ll turn them back on otherwise not worth it
I'll do that Sunday night. Not a minute sooner or later.
But I will do it then.
Sunday evening/night let's all come here and either cry or celebrate together!
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 13:36
You are so correct about Self Worth...But Self Worth does not buy new equipment, food, or everything else. I think most photographers new that most if not all stock houses are like whoring for a Whorehouse. At first when you are young your prices are high as you get older your prices drop. But you keep Whoring.One person shutting down their portfolio is meaningless. People will not gather up/unionized to pull their pictures off SS. Not sure there's an answer to this mess. I did my Jethro math with what little info SS sent me. I am guessing I may lose 30% to 50% of income from future SS income. That sucks but pulling portfolios off SS is not the answer. Looks like SS for many in the future is just a photo hobby and not a future business. I would think this may hurt the international photographers in third worlds the most. It is still fun taking photos but just a lot less future cash.Self respect is worth more than money.
Post by: wollwerth on May 26, 2020, 13:42
Post by: dbvirago on May 26, 2020, 13:51
I'm not entirely sure what kind of a bet Kate at Shutterstock lost to be the face of this fiasco.
I'm not even sure Kate is a person. But if she is, I think she'll go the way of Alex Shutterstock soon.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 26, 2020, 13:52
Post by: Minsc on May 26, 2020, 13:52
Post by: cathyslife on May 26, 2020, 13:54
Post by: EmberMike on May 26, 2020, 13:57
Unbelievable. >:(
Post by: Rage on May 26, 2020, 14:02
Post by: wollwerth on May 26, 2020, 14:09
This is pathetic. So at the beginning of every year they get to make serious bank off of contributors backs by dropping everyone to the lowest pay level.I just sent them a reply to that email congratulating them on their decision. They will lose their best contributors.
Unbelievable. >:(
Post by: H2O on May 26, 2020, 14:13
The reality is they won't find this out for a couple of years, as the buyers move elsewhere.
Post by: daveh900 on May 26, 2020, 14:24
Use the dollar sign, not a hashtag.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 26, 2020, 14:25
ShutterStock are finished as a site, anyone who has any sense of their own worth is going to leave them.
The reality is they won't find this out for a couple of years, as the buyers move elsewhere.
Sadly this probably isn't accurate. For every one of you or me who leaves, there are tens of thousands of newbies who are elated someone, anyone, is willing to pay them a few cents for their work. Hell, look at the tens of thousands of people on Unsplash giving away their work so they can just get attention.
When Getty introduced this type of structure, everyone called them the evil empire and vowed loyalty to Shutterstock. None of these partners can be trusted. But I'm sure Adobe will be anointed as the new savior.
Post by: NitorPhoto on May 26, 2020, 14:32
Post by: georgep7 on May 26, 2020, 14:37
Stock traders are very active twitter users. Post your disgust on twitter using: $sstk
Use the dollar sign, not a hashtag.
Do they lose something to care about?
QUESTION
Again, may I ask those five day notice are final? After that portfolio can be deactivated or removed or not?
Post by: Noedelhap on May 26, 2020, 14:39
How in the world do we survive dwindling sales if our own agencies screw us over every once in a while? Just when you think you're floating towards shore, they just push you back out to sea to drown.
All I'm asking is a steady revenue with some growth, but Shutterstock is like your annoying big brother trampling all over your sandcastle.
You're trying to rebuild it, and just when you think you're back to a respectable size, there comes your big brother again, demolishing your hard work.
Post by: cloudvisual on May 26, 2020, 14:39
This is pathetic. So at the beginning of every year they get to make serious bank off of contributors backs by dropping everyone to the lowest pay level.
Unbelievable. >:(
Someone got a pay rise at SS when they suggested this reset for January.
The quieter December sales month needs a massive payout for SS in January/February when everyone is on the lower tiers.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 26, 2020, 14:49
Interesting thing is for me, it doesn't matter. I removed most of valuable images years ago and left a small amount of generic stock. And as expected, monthly earnings have dropped over time. So I now earn a nice dinner a month which doesn't matter if I lose it. And now with this new program that will drop to a cheap dinner which really doesn't matter at all.
So one thing that may bite SS, is the fact that a large amount of contributors have been beat down so much over time that SS earnings are peanuts that no longer matter.
Post by: BigLeague on May 26, 2020, 14:51
I would vote for a new agency that is created and owned by the people submitting, and really pushed as the only ethical way clients should by images. We always want this when every pay decrease happens. Is there enough people now to get it going/
Post by: JetCityImage on May 26, 2020, 14:54
Post by: NeonRobot on May 26, 2020, 14:56
They are suggesting to shot on iphone instead of dslr's and mirrorless.
Funny thing sh#ty iphone is way tooo luxury for contributors with such earnings.
Post by: NitorPhoto on May 26, 2020, 15:00
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 26, 2020, 15:03
"Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time."
The only thing missing is it didn't start with "We have exciting news!"
Post by: thirdbornentertainment on May 26, 2020, 15:04
Post by: Noedelhap on May 26, 2020, 15:04
ShutterStock are finished as a site, anyone who has any sense of their own worth is going to leave them.
The reality is they won't find this out for a couple of years, as the buyers move elsewhere.
When Getty introduced this type of structure, everyone called them the evil empire and vowed loyalty to Shutterstock. None of these partners can be trusted. But I'm sure Adobe will be anointed as the new savior.
Sadly, now we're going to see lots of unhappy SS contributors flock towards Adobe, just like they flocked to SS when iStock went crazy. These unhappy contributors will flood Adobe with millions of images, diluting any sales there as well. I predict the following years are going to be terrible. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not depending on stock revenue.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 15:08
"Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time."
That's another way of restating the classic line: What have you done for me lately?
Or to translate it into byzantine Shutterstockian language:
Just because we sold a ton of your images/clips in the past — and both you and we made lots of $$$ off of those ample sales for a decade or more — it's all old news now. The only thing that we care about is what you're selling "at the current time." So… buzz off, long-time contributor, and screw you. We don't need you any more.
Post by: panicAttack on May 26, 2020, 15:08
Post by: Mimi the Cat on May 26, 2020, 15:10
They can eff off and the horse they rode in on >:(
Post by: wordplanet on May 26, 2020, 15:10
10 cents is still much less than 38 cents it is just 25%, horrible. She actually confirmed it.
This is far more devious than it at first appears. If the largest subscription lets buyers pay 22 cents for a download, then even if you are in the 40% tier, you'd only be entitled to 8 cents for that download, generously rounded up to the minimum 10 cents, meaning everyone will be getting a huge number of 10 cent downloads not just in January, but all year long even after making thousands of sales. Basically, no matter your level, for subscription sales, "we are all in this together."
Why bother? This is the final nail in the coffin for SS contributors.
Post by: marthamarks on May 26, 2020, 15:11
All I can say is I'm glad I'm not depending on stock revenue.
Same here.
But I did enjoy having a bit of extra income for all these years… all of it earned by doing something I loved to do. It was nice while it lasted.
Post by: JetCityImage on May 26, 2020, 15:18
Post by: Evaristo tenscadisto on May 26, 2020, 15:18
"We are well positioned financially with $296 million in cash and no debt. Our strong liquidity position combined with the progress we are making against our margin enhancement initiatives make us well positioned to meet our financial objectives when demand returns to historical levels," concluded by Jarrod Yahes, Chief Financial Officer.
it's time to ask: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"Mark 8:36
Instead of just having faith act now! Protect your work. leave SS before end of month.
Link to report 1st Quarter 2020: (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-reports-first-quarter-2020-financial-results-301048037.html (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shutterstock-reports-first-quarter-2020-financial-results-301048037.html))
Best regards
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 15:22
Post by: Sebastian Radu on May 26, 2020, 15:29
There are (in my case at least) 3-4 agencies I still work with.
I think the vast majority came to the bottom with patience and indulgence.
If there is someone who knows better, he can give us a hand.
For me, it is a closed road from now on.
And I was thinking of buying a new camera...
Post by: Noedelhap on May 26, 2020, 15:30
Can we set up a crowdfund campaign, hire a lawer and sue these asses? Atleast a determined push to get everyone off SS and onto Adobe or Pond5 would be absolutely worth it.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Don't forget Pond5 is equally sucky. Hyperstock, their stupid "Townhall meeting" which turned out to be a unilateral way to announce a commission cut...no, Pond5 is a bad guy too.
It'll only be a matter of time before Adobe Stock is going the same route. Back in the day, Fotolia used to squeeze contributors, then Adobe took over and made it better again, but still: never trust any big company. They're there to make money, not to be our friends.
Post by: Noedelhap on May 26, 2020, 15:33
Can we sue them? Is there a possibility?
Short answer: No.
Long answer:..............No.
Post by: Pixart on May 26, 2020, 15:35
The new CEO has a name, Stan Pavlovsky. Right up there with Kelly Thompson and Jonathan Kline.
But money isn't going to be what makes us happy. I should have listened the first time.
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 15:41
Post by: jjneff on May 26, 2020, 15:44
Post by: Pixart on May 26, 2020, 15:48
F*ckers
Post by: sharpshot on May 26, 2020, 15:51
Post by: m on May 26, 2020, 15:54
Truly the most powerful way is to have a large enough group of people disable their port on June 1
I agree. I hope everyone is onboard.
and since you're in with Blackbox. Ask them too.
Post by: jamesbenet on May 26, 2020, 15:57
Post by: everest on May 26, 2020, 16:13
And they rejecting 9 out of 10 video uploads really doesn't help you even dream of going up another tier. This is iStock 2.0 as the thread states with an even more perfected coldness by simply obliterating contributors by a thousand blows day by day. The only solution is software that bypasses agencies and licenses contributor work by p2p letting all the little contributor island portfolios be connected. I think this is coming with blockchain in the coming years including dustributed video hosting at a low price.
Post by: dragonblade on May 26, 2020, 16:21
Post by: Microstockphoto on May 26, 2020, 16:31
Post by: Cider Apple on May 26, 2020, 16:35
And they rejecting 9 out of 10 video uploads really doesn't help you even dream of going up another tier. This is iStock 2.0 as the thread states with an even more perfected coldness by simply obliterating contributors by a thousand blows day by day. The only solution is software that bypasses agencies and licenses contributor work by p2p letting all the little contributor island portfolios be connected. I think this is coming with blockchain in the coming years including dustributed video hosting at a low price.
I've been thinking exactly the same thing. Smart contracts on a decentralized hosting site. Maybe Theta or Coil or something?
Post by: tpack on May 26, 2020, 16:51
i dont know but i am not going to sit here for hours clicking their fuсking google ads link fuсk sakeLook at there share price it going up today:yes lets hurt them by clicking 1 cent at a time
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/SSTK)
Why not clicking there Adwords/Advertising at Google away?
it is more than 1 cent and we can make them invisible at Google.
What will you do?
hours? ;D If everyone of us will do this 2 times a day it will hurt them... :-*
The company is worth almost $1.5b. You have no idea how little impact you'd have on them. By the time you'd found and clicked an advert they'd have probably made $5-10k in sales.
Just to go into more detail. If it was possible that you could click one of their ads once per second and it cost them exactly $1 per click, doing this 24/7 - 365, it would take 31 years to reach a $1b in clicks.
it only works if many contributor will do...
But maybe we better should do nothing ... ;D
Probably the better option is to buy many shares of STK, join other shareholder activists, and force all current management out. We would need like 15% voting shares to have any impact on the management.
Post by: arapix on May 26, 2020, 16:53
And for sure this earning schedule is not one of them
I thought they will send us good news about fighting images spam or making better algorithm for displaying contents .
I am sure SS is smart enough to listen to their contributors and consider them partners of the success of SS otherwise they will lose a lot indeed.
Post by: Orchidpoet on May 26, 2020, 16:54
Post by: cathyslife on May 26, 2020, 16:56
"Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time."
I read that three times, and I still don’t get how this FUBAR (for those non-USAers...effed up beyond all recognition ... a military term) “provides an avenue to be fairly rewarded”. They are hosing people big time!
Post by: klsbear on May 26, 2020, 17:20
"Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time."
It leaves you wondering why anyone would put energy into creating “fresh, relevant, in demand content” for a reduced percentage, especially when it was already low. If you have enough older content to bring you to a higher level quickly you would at best wait to upload fresh content when you were getting a higher rate per image rather than sell it for pennies.
Post by: NitorPhoto on May 26, 2020, 17:32
Post by: fritz on May 26, 2020, 17:35
Post by: wordplanet on May 26, 2020, 17:47
Probably the better option is to buy many shares of STK, join other shareholder activists, and force all current management out. We would need like 15% voting shares to have any impact on the management.
I was all set to sell my shares first thing tomorrow, because I don't want to support a company that is treating their contributors this way, but this is really a much smarter option. I just can't imagine enough of us getting together and having that clout.
But maybe I should wait and see - I'd be glad to be part of an activist group.
Covid has made things so bad and this truly devious move by ss with the percentage ruse (even at 40% most sub downloads will earn you just 10 cents!) is really the last straw. Unless you are a huge producer, I don't see how this is viable anymore, and even then how do you profit after all the expense? When you can't shoot assignments due to social distancing requirements, what is a photographer to do?
Post by: wordplanet on May 26, 2020, 17:49
Post by: Dimco on May 26, 2020, 17:59
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on May 26, 2020, 18:02
Does this mean by uploading to Blackbox we are automatically in the top tier of earners???
That would seem to be the case. From the owner: 'I can tell you that we will reach 5,000 in as little as a month'. That would mean an increase to 20% after the first 90 minutes of the year, 25% after 7.5 hours, 30% after 1.5 days, 35% after a month and 40% after 5 months. Don't forget the 15% that BB take as well... although they did have a deal that seemed to pretty much eliminate the 15% (although the exact details of the deal were never really disclosed when it came to figures), but not sure how that will work now... whether they still get a special rate or not.
But still, does make BB a lot more appealing now. I was planning to stop uploading to BB, but I guess it makes sense to carry on. Unlikely I'll be going over 25% on my individual account. Might hit 30% in time for Christmas if I'm super lucky.
Post by: Canonbabe on May 26, 2020, 18:20
help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors: Like the communists did: you all get the same pay, close to zero.
and reward performance with greater earnings potential: A potential, like in a chance close to zero?
To the majority of the contributors it will take months to get back on the level they are now and then comes january again and they set you back to level one!
It's IStock 2.0 indeed where I got so many $.07 sales I decided to upload only older files there so what I upload today won't be at IStock till november or so. I'm thinking of doing the same with Shutterstock since it's not worth anymore.
By the way: I won't be surprised if we receive the same message from Bigstock anytime soon!
Post by: obj owl on May 26, 2020, 18:35
This is pathetic. So at the beginning of every year they get to make serious bank off of contributors backs by dropping everyone to the lowest pay level.I just sent them a reply to that email congratulating them on their decision. They will lose their best contributors.
Unbelievable. >:(
If by best you mean those that sell the most I think you will find they will be more than happy about the situation. They get an initial boost from now until January by the end of which the will be back up to the top band. They sell most of the content and make most of the money and now they will make more.
Post by: Mrblues101 on May 26, 2020, 18:38
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)
Post by: mj007 on May 26, 2020, 18:50
Post by: Bart on May 26, 2020, 19:10
Post by: PigsInSpace on May 26, 2020, 19:24
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 26, 2020, 19:44
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)
You forgot the annual payment plan for subscription. That takes 750 images per month down to $199 per month.
Plus there is a newly-announced pay-up-front for an annual subscription which results in $166.58 a month or 22 cents an image. Even at 40%, that's only 8.8 cents (i.e. you'd get 10 cents at all levels)
Post by: Bart on May 26, 2020, 19:44
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 26, 2020, 19:45
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265443289441824768
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 26, 2020, 19:46
Let’s get a hashtag started on social media, has to start with shutterstock so it auto suggests the rest... maybe #shutterstockboycott ?
Lots of existing tweets with #boycottShutterstock, so that's what I'm going with
Post by: Bart on May 26, 2020, 20:09
More effective to start with most obvious search word.
Let’s get a hashtag started on social media, has to start with shutterstock so it auto suggests the rest... maybe #shutterstockboycott ?
Lots of existing tweets with #boycottShutterstock, so that's what I'm going with
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 26, 2020, 21:33
ShutterStock are finished as a site, anyone who has any sense of their own worth is going to leave them.
The reality is they won't find this out for a couple of years, as the buyers move elsewhere.
When Getty introduced this type of structure, everyone called them the evil empire and vowed loyalty to Shutterstock. None of these partners can be trusted. But I'm sure Adobe will be anointed as the new savior.
Sadly, now we're going to see lots of unhappy SS contributors flock towards Adobe, just like they flocked to SS when iStock went crazy. These unhappy contributors will flood Adobe with millions of images, diluting any sales there as well. I predict the following years are going to be terrible. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not depending on stock revenue.
I cant remember the progression but I think Fotolia screwed everybody and people flocked to Istock. Then Istock did the screwing and people flocked to SS. Now here we are. Is it only a matter of time before Matt shows up here and doesn't have the usual good Adobe news to share?
Or maybe Adobe will take advantage of this situation. Introduce some aggressive and innovative changes to attract disgruntled and fed-up contributors to crush SS out of existence. Would be nice to have a trustworthy partner again. Until then, investing anything in this business is a loser in the long term.
Post by: Artist on May 26, 2020, 22:01
Post by: motionguy on May 26, 2020, 23:03
Post by: stryjek on May 26, 2020, 23:05
Post by: stryjek on May 26, 2020, 23:08
Post by: gnirtS on May 26, 2020, 23:14
I'm not entirely sure what kind of a bet Kate at Shutterstock lost to be the face of this fiasco.
I'm not even sure Kate is a person. But if she is, I think she'll go the way of Alex Shutterstock soon.
I think its a person. Sent me a PM telling me to stop asking questions in the initial thread then banned me. Not seen bots do that before!
Post by: Keifer on May 26, 2020, 23:42
Post by: Artist on May 27, 2020, 00:03
For those earning $0.25 or $0.38, how much will earn now?
And on demand? And same for enhanced and single other?
This is so confusing. I went through the SS forum which is on fire right now, with no proper guidance from the officials.
Post by: cobalt on May 27, 2020, 00:33
But what kind of mix will it be?
Professional uploaders have a chance to get a higher bonus.
Resetting everyone to zero in January is the real cruelty and worse than on istock.
But for some ambitious newbies this system might work better, because reaching 10 000 dollars takes much longer because there are less higher photo sales.
I will pass judgement after seeing results.
Even with only 1550 photos I will be in the 30% bracket this year, but for video it will be less because video sales have dropped.
But overall my portfolio is still very small. With a „normal size“ of say 6000 files my percentage would probably be unchanged except for the beginning of the year.
The worst is they might reset levels every year with new, higher targets.
Post by: trabuco on May 27, 2020, 00:36
Post by: gnirtS on May 27, 2020, 00:49
What does this mean in terms of earning?
For those earning $0.25 or $0.38, how much will earn now?
And on demand? And same for enhanced and single other?
This is so confusing. I went through the SS forum which is on fire right now, with no proper guidance from the officials.
For subs the official wording is "not less than 10 cents". So i take that to mean probably about 10 cents.
They've refused to publish the new earnings schedule and say it'll go live on June 1st. So refusing to tell anyone in advance what they'll be "earning".
Post by: leaf on May 27, 2020, 00:49
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 calculating that out. it looks like the left two columns will be more than our current rates and the right two less than our current rate. Now we just need to know what % of sales are the right two columns 🤔
I feel the least they could do is have a rolling 12 month level system - nothing like demotivating people by taking away rewards / levels they've worked hard to achieve over the previous years.
With all the upset people, this is the perfect storm for Adobe to swoop in with a sweat exclusive offering.
Post by: Chichikov on May 27, 2020, 01:07
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/with-new-earning-structure-made-by-shutterstock-will-you-disable-your-portfolio/msg549841/#msg549841 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/with-new-earning-structure-made-by-shutterstock-will-you-disable-your-portfolio/msg549841/#msg549841)
Post by: Horizon on May 27, 2020, 01:17
I have 27K images with them. I've been uploading 200+ a week for months. No more. I just deleted all pending images.
I will be shocked if this doesn't get reversed. I've never seen such a backlash in my 16 years doing this.
Neither have I and been with them since the start! its an utterly disgusting agenda! ever get the feeling that Getty is the owner behind the scenes??
Post by: spike on May 27, 2020, 01:25
First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.
So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:
1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.
Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.
Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:
1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.
We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.
Post by: tickstock on May 27, 2020, 01:59
Post by: HalfFull on May 27, 2020, 02:04
This sounds like bad news, but we all need to keep our cool. Personally, I've been waiting for something like this since video subs were implemented, but that didn't cause such a reaction. If there was ever a time for a coordinated effort by contributors, it's now. Just my portfolio is around 50k assets, and I'm sure that, if needed, we can create a coordinated strong strike. But we need to see how will this affect us, using data, not emotions.
First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.
So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:
1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.
Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.
Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:
1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.
We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.
Agree... I've a 100+ waiting to submit out of 200. I'll just make a record of the ones that haven't gone through yet and not submit them. I can easily focus on work for AS (which differs to SS for me) and not submit anything to SS. It also gives us a chance to see what damage the changes will do to our existing ports, while demonstrating to SS that the supply of new content will dry up and stop. No fresh new images for them, just their competitors. Then the nuke button.
Post by: Dimco on May 27, 2020, 02:13
This sounds like bad news, but we all need to keep our cool. Personally, I've been waiting for something like this since video subs were implemented, but that didn't cause such a reaction. If there was ever a time for a coordinated effort by contributors, it's now. Just my portfolio is around 50k assets, and I'm sure that, if needed, we can create a coordinated strong strike. But we need to see how will this affect us, using data, not emotions.
First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.
So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:
1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.
Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.
Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:
1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.
We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.
contributors hold significant say in an agency future, but we are so many and scattered all over the globe. if you remember almost 70-80% of SS royalties are paid in eastern europe. the last time in fact the olny time we have made a difference was exactly with boycott fotolia initiative. it was done by ukranian contributors to which we all joined. it has to be done that way.
Post by: Jens G on May 27, 2020, 02:16
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:Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
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)
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.
Post by: spike on May 27, 2020, 02:28
contributors hold significant say in an agency future, but we are so many and scattered all over the globe. if you remember almost 70-80% of SS royalties are paid in eastern europe. the last time in fact the olny time we have made a difference was exactly with boycott fotolia initiative. it was done by ukranian contributors to which we all joined. it has to be done that way.
If Russian and Ukrainian contributors are on board, that's great. If anyone speaks russian, microstock.ru is the place to go and ask.
Blackbox could make a statement as well if they have any integrity.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 27, 2020, 02:33
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.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:Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
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)
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.
Post by: Pauws99 on May 27, 2020, 02:33
not the case as they state the amount is based on the full package. "If a customer buys a pack or sub, but doesn’t use it all, how are my earnings calculated?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:Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
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)
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.
When a customer buys a pack or subscription, your commission is calculated based on the price per asset assuming full usage of the pack or subscription. For example, if a customer buys a 10 images per month subscription at $49 per month, the price per image is $4.90. Your earnings percentage is based on $4.90 regardless of how many images the customer downloads from their allotment. " Not even I stock do that
Post by: leaf on May 27, 2020, 02:53
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:Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
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)
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.
It doesn't matter if all images are used or not. They have specified that if it is an image pack for $10 for 10 images, then our share is a % of $1.00 per image. Even if only 1 image is downloaded.
Post by: panicAttack on May 27, 2020, 02:55
Post by: Jens G on May 27, 2020, 03:04
Thanks for the clarification. Not very fair.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:Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
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)
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.
It doesn't matter if all images are used or not. They have specified that if it is an image pack for $10 for 10 images, then our share is a % of $1.00 per image. Even if only 1 image is downloaded.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 27, 2020, 03:22
The percentages they speak about are all just a slight of hand. We ALL will be making a fraction of what we made before.
Post by: Mason Surley on May 27, 2020, 03:27
https://twitter.com/mason_surley/status/1265541418623401985?s=21
Post by: Pacesetter on May 27, 2020, 03:32
'Seriously if the contributor community want to make an impact there needs to be organizing as many contributors together to effectively disrupt the new model. I see suggestions to opt-out of sales from 1 June. No need to delete ports unless contributors want to. Just turn them off. There needs to be a clear and concise message and instruction to fellow contributors on various forums on how to opt-out on 1 June, perhaps for a period of two weeks (initially) to send a clear message. A 10% to 20% shutdown of content would suffice to achieve this as shareholders won't be happy with a significant drop in sales and profits.
Key is the contributor community need to strike while the iron is hot because this is the only chance you have to make a difference before emotions settle and a new normal sets in. There won't be another chance.'
Post by: dragonblade on May 27, 2020, 04:26
Post by: Pauws99 on May 27, 2020, 04:48
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on May 27, 2020, 05:00
A 10% to 20% shutdown of content would suffice to achieve this as shareholders won't be happy with a significant drop in sales and profits.
But what drop in sales would that result in, realistically? 10 to 20% less content wouldn't automatically result in 10 to 20% less sales... could just result in 10 to 20% of all sales being from content that is still on the platform, rather than content that's not. Take all the steak off your menu, then you're probably going to get people looking for alternative restaurants to eat at. Get rid of just the 12 oz. steak when you still have 8/9/10/11 oz. and 13/14/15/16 oz. steaks available... people are more likely to just buy one of those instead.
Post by: Nica on May 27, 2020, 05:15
Anyway my account is completely deleted not only suspended.!
Post by: cobalt on May 27, 2020, 05:17
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 don‘t 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.
Post by: aprott on May 27, 2020, 05:19
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 don’t use up all subscription slots.
Hey wait a minute: if the customers didn’t 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 ;-)
Post by: aprott on May 27, 2020, 05:23
Post by: Rage on May 27, 2020, 05:25
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
Post by: everest on May 27, 2020, 05:35
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
Post by: ShadySue on May 27, 2020, 05:40
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.
Post by: everest on May 27, 2020, 05:41
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.
Post by: monti on May 27, 2020, 05:45
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 (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.
Post by: NeonRobot on May 27, 2020, 05:58
It's a matter of time until AS will do the same as IS and SS! (https://www.demilked.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/5ab4ae499e488-satirical-illustrations-gerhard-haderer-26-5ab3892acbe9e__700.jpg)
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.
Post by: aprott on May 27, 2020, 06:22
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 (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.
Post by: Pauws99 on May 27, 2020, 06:25
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.We know quite a bit the "most popular" image pack is Ł.28 per image and we will be getting a perecentage of that.
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 (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.
Post by: Perry on May 27, 2020, 06:32
Post by: Perry on May 27, 2020, 06:35
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 (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.
Post by: gnirtS on May 27, 2020, 06:44
They've had prior articles covering Shutterstock and others.
Post by: trek on May 27, 2020, 06:46
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.
Post by: candidcruiser on May 27, 2020, 06:58
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.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:Thanks for the calculations. But it seems more complicated than that.
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)
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.
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.
Post by: Bart on May 27, 2020, 07:03
Post by: skysense on May 27, 2020, 07:17
Negative rating on their app, and truth in comments.
Stop uploading on SS
1st June STRIKE!
Post by: cloudvisual on May 27, 2020, 07:18
Post by: skysense on May 27, 2020, 07:27
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.
Post by: Daryl Ray on May 27, 2020, 07:29
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.
Post by: Mimi the Cat on May 27, 2020, 07:39
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 ::) ::)"
Post by: monti on May 27, 2020, 07:46
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 (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? :)
Post by: Rage on May 27, 2020, 07:47
Anyone considered seeing if Petapixel want to write something ? ( https://petapixel.com/contact/ )This would be a good idea. The more news the better
They've had prior articles covering Shutterstock and others.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: zorba on May 27, 2020, 07:51
Mistreating the vast majority of contributors is how SS takes advantage of us all: that’s why is a good idea to have trillions of facile images, not-so-crappy but not even very good. That’s not a problem: these image means good money for SS: and these images are a very very big number. They SELL EVERYTHING and it’s their win if they sell an image from a contributor with a low per-year number of sales. That’s great for them: we are a huge number. So from their point of view the sales-mumber is high anyway, and their percentage is higher anyway.
In January we all will earn less and SS will earn more. Then they will earn a little less from some great studios and keep on earning a lot from the masses… things will be normal in the end of the year… and then restart.
You are never finally rewarded with SS.
This is how to impoverish copyright at the very best level.
After all microstock is commoditization of intellectual property. We are simply saying “oh yeah, let F*** us HARDER!”.
Leaving in SS our portfolio if we are not earning in a satisfactory way, is rewarding for them anyway: this give the message that we don’t care if we are mistreated.
They don’t feel any after effects if we leave images in agencies that don’t pay us the right. More poor is the contributor, and more they f*** it!
Struggle in microstock has become harder than struggle in real life photography if you are a good photographer, but not excellent in general ADV, and Enterprise-like organized.
Post by: Rage on May 27, 2020, 07:56
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
Post by: memakephoto on May 27, 2020, 08:13
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.
I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.
If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.
Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.
Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.
Post by: obj owl on May 27, 2020, 08:15
Post by: uvox4 on May 27, 2020, 08:24
Too angry and sad to say anymore..
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 27, 2020, 08:28
I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.
If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.
Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.
Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.
A union absolutely doesn't have to be exclusive. There are lots of workplaces that have both union and non union workers (I've worked in several).
We don't even need an official Union, all we need is a bit of solidarity and acknowledging that we need to stand together to perform any kind of push-back against this sort of thing.
It's the only way conditions ever improve, and has worked brilliantly for us in this industry in the recent past. It got DPC shut down fast after FL spent a lot of time and effort setting it up.
Everyone doesn't have to be on board, but enough people have to have the b***s to stand up to make a difference.
Post by: Daryl Ray on May 27, 2020, 08:35
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.
I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.
If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.
Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.
Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.
As is always misunderstood by the naysayers, we don't need a "union" specifically, not in the way you mention. It doesn't need to be "mandatory". What we need is some type of coalition, (definition: "a group formed when two or more people, factions, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.")
It just needs to be a group with enough content represented that the stock companies are forced to negotiate or risk a real palatable backlash. It should involve information campaigns, social media blitzes, etc. Most importantly, it should introduce consequences to greedy actions by the companies. Will it work? Who * knows. But the continued refusal to even entertain the concept didn't stop Shutterstock from screwing us, did it?
Post by: obj owl on May 27, 2020, 08:40
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 calculating that out. it looks like the left two columns will be more than our current rates and the right two less than our current rate. Now we just need to know what % of sales are the right two columns 🤔
I feel the least they could do is have a rolling 12 month level system - nothing like demotivating people by taking away rewards / levels they've worked hard to achieve over the previous years.
With all the upset people, this is the perfect storm for Adobe to swoop in with a sweat exclusive offering.
Discounting 50% in January would make them figures look optimistic. Would a prepaided yearly pack sold in January at a heavily discounted price give you 15% for those sales throughout the year?
Post by: thx9000 on May 27, 2020, 08:50
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.
I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.
If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.
Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.
Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.
As is always misunderstood by the naysayers, we don't need a "union" specifically, not in the way you mention. It doesn't need to be "mandatory". What we need is some type of coalition, (definition: "a group formed when two or more people, factions, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.")
It just needs to be a group with enough content represented that the stock companies are forced to negotiate or risk a real palatable backlash. It should involve information campaigns, social media blitzes, etc. Most importantly, it should introduce consequences to greedy actions by the companies. Will it work? Who * knows. But the continued refusal to even entertain the concept didn't stop Shutterstock from screwing us, did it?
Agree with the urgent need of some type of association. I was thinking also about some kind of association label given to agencies and promoted in social media - like Fair Trade for microstock
Post by: jav on May 27, 2020, 08:58
Post by: gnirtS on May 27, 2020, 09:20
Anyone considered seeing if Petapixel want to write something ? ( https://petapixel.com/contact/ )This would be a good idea. The more news the better
They've had prior articles covering Shutterstock and others.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
I just submitted. Maybe if others did the same they might realise theres a potential story here to publish.
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 09:22
did anyone experience sale increase after yesterday announcement?
Nope. Nada. Zip. No SS sales yesterday.
Post by: JustAnImage on May 27, 2020, 09:26
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 09:52
I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.
Same here. Seems like many others are prepared to do the same.
God bless us all!
Post by: JustAnImage on May 27, 2020, 10:00
-> https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings)
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 10:09
Just found petition this on another site:
-> https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings)
Thanks for posting this link! I just signed it.
This is an EXCELLENT way to draw attention to the problem, so thanks to you or whoever did it, for launching the petition.
Post by: Uncle Pete on May 27, 2020, 10:12
Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.
If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.
Haven't read the whole long thread yet, just time for a short informational answer in case others are asking the same?
All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.
Level 1, <= 100 = 15%
Level 2, 101 - 250 = 20%
Level 3, 251 - 500 = 25%
Level 4, 501 - 2,500 = 30%
Level 5, 2,501 - 25,000 = 35%
Level 6, > 25,000 = 40%
I'm trying to figure out what this applies to, subs don't seem to fit with percentages, OD, EL, S&O for sure do.
Now everyone can go back to association or union absurd arguments. How do you hold any power or control over the agency, you need negotiating power. If your product is a world commodity, you have no leverage. Yeah, start a petition, that's another waste of time. But if that makes you feel good. ::)
Post by: Noedelhap on May 27, 2020, 10:23
It's a battle you can't win, except maybe preserve your dignity and sanity by leaving SS.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 10:26
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!
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265443289441824768
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265662462122065922
Use the hashtags #Shutterstock and #boycottShutterstock in whatever you tweet. Do a search and you'll see others are tweeting about this. The more the merrier...
Post by: Petr Toman on May 27, 2020, 10:28
https://ibb.co/Sntgh5W
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 10:30
did anyone experience sale increase after yesterday announcement?
Nope. Nada. Zip. No SS sales yesterday.
Ironically it was a great (by current standards) day, including a $54 SOD royalty :)
Post by: Dirima on May 27, 2020, 10:31
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.
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.
It is possible that something like this can happen. Its actually very old trick.
I`ve thought something like this. it's quite likely, knowing how the big corps behave.
Post by: cobalt on May 27, 2020, 10:33
Just look at what was achieved with the protest against Hyperstock this year.
We also got rid of the dollar photo store by fotolia etc...
But it will mostly depend on how the income changes and we need at least all of June to see results.
But people will not upload blindly if the results are bad. Upload streams react quickly, it doesn‘t have to be deactivations, people will just leave their ports as is and focus their attention elsewhere.
The market is self regulating, nobody uploads for the occasional 10 cent sale.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 10:34
And the magic word "lawsuit"? ... massive lawsuit? and the much feared word "discrimination" so feared by companies in times of political correctness. Could it be possible to use any of that?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think, given the terms of our contributor agreement can be altered at any time to anything and without notice, there's any legal issue to bring up.
The slashing of earnings for every contributor isn't discrimination against any group, so I don't see how that applies
Post by: Uncle Pete on May 27, 2020, 10:48
Petitions asking to revert the decision are useless. No customer sees those petitions, the demands are unrealistic (canceling this decision would cost SS millions) and even with a million signatures you have no leveraging power. It's only through port deletion that contributors can 'fight back'. Although someone more gullible or ignorant would instantly fill the empty spot you leave behind. SS don't care, neither do (most) customers.
It's a battle you can't win, except maybe preserve your dignity and sanity by leaving SS.
Good points. While I look at the discouraging new system, I'm also reminded that my earnings have already dropped over the past two years. This is just making everything worse.
I hope the new people stop uploading and new dreamy eyed contributors are so turned off that they stop joining. Then I'm also in favor of anyone who wants to protest and close their account, especially if you do anything that's similar to mine. ;D You have my full support and encouragement. Less competition can only help me. Thanks!
When I first joined I saw the Microstock likeness to a MLM and was told how wrong I was, as this isn't anything like that. Well, yes it is. Maybe not a structural pyramid, but basically, the people who make referrals, make money in the start. Then that becomes so difficult that just about everyone has already joined and quit. In the case of Microstock, the agencies saw the new contributors declining, and the quality wasn't there, so they ended the programs.
The people on top are pointed out as "you can do this too", and then the hucksters will write books, blogs, and teach classes on how to make money at Microstock. That's where the real money was. Just like the gold rush, the people who sold tools, whiskey and food, made the best money. Hardly a miner went away with any riches. Microstock is the same.
Every agency except SS has been consolidating and restructuring levels, then lowering commissions as well. They are the last. I will say that Adobe actually improved the structure when they adjusted things. But everyone else, cut our commissions, continues to cut, and found ways to make more for themselves and less for us. SS just got on the runaway train, no brakes, headed downhill into a sharp curve on the edge of the cliff, with the rest of them.
The race to the bottom just added another causality.
Post by: Shelma1 on May 27, 2020, 10:52
Post by: spike on May 27, 2020, 10:53
This sounds like bad news, but we all need to keep our cool. Personally, I've been waiting for something like this since video subs were implemented, but that didn't cause such a reaction. If there was ever a time for a coordinated effort by contributors, it's now. Just my portfolio is around 50k assets, and I'm sure that, if needed, we can create a coordinated strong strike. But we need to see how will this affect us, using data, not emotions.
First of all, in the last 4 months, the average earnings by subs was 27% of all monthly earnings (for my portfolio). So, percentage wise, the segment of sales that will be hit the hardest isn't as drastic as I imagined.
Secondly, the idea of resetting the contributor's progress to level 1 at the beginning of each year is absolutely bonkers.
Lastly - the idea of using levels for subs is unacceptable.
So, this is what I suggest our demands should be:
1. Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subs alone. 10 cents for an image is unacceptable.
2. End the video sub program, just like fotolia ended DollarPhotoClub back in the day. We can do it.
3. Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.
Now, demands don't make sense if there is no threat of penalty.
Again, my suggestions in regards what to do if shutterstock doesn't agree with our demands:
1. Stop uploading for 30 days. Not a single piece of content.
2. If no change - start pulling our portfolios. This needs to be a coordinated effort, like it was with DPC.
3. Reach out - to buyers, people holding their stock. Tweet. Be loud on social media. Make their stock tank. Without contributors like us, they are nothing.
We can create a website (like in the DPC days) and organize ourselves quickly, we've shown strength and solidarity when it was needed. Are you ready to come together now? That's up to you. The response to this post will give us the answer.
Seems that there is interest for this idea.
If anyone has web dev skills, hit me up and let's set up a website. I'll pay for the domain name and hosting, that's no issue.
There would be a form on the website to enter some basic details like the amount of assets in your portfolio - the portfolio you're willing to deactivate after 30 days if our demands won't be met. Then we sum up all the contributors that have signed up and see how much bargaining power we actually have.
Sure - they have 325 million images in the library. But let's not kid ourselves - most of that is spam.
You know how they always write in articles to produce unique and local content. Guess why? Because the image factories don't do that. Image factories make generic content, and that's our strength. That same generic content will probably stay, along with 1040337474 variations of waving flags of all countries, but the real content, the unique and local content? On other stock agencies.
Shutterstock knows how valuable this is. We should too.
Let's organize. Hit me up.
Post by: Desintegrator on May 27, 2020, 11:02
I've seen rants appearing under their Facebook post, which is good. But probably they will start cleaning up, and banning users. So maybe when a post from is already full of complaints in a very visible way, you should hold back on adding more to that one, so if they start paning prosting users from their Facebook page there will be still some of us left to keep the rants appearing under new posts they share!
Post by: EmberMike on May 27, 2020, 11:06
That's what is so disappointing about this, that it's not a decision based on anything other than an easy opportunity to cut all contributors off at the knees for at least a month. High-earning contributors will bounce back to their regular rate by February, but not before handing over a huge chunk of earnings to the company in January.
And it's so easily changed, just set the system to calculate January rates based on December numbers. But nope, they won't do that.
Unbelievable.
I've struggled for years to hang on, to try and keep this thing going in some way. But it's over. Time to truly move on.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 27, 2020, 11:14
There will always be scabs and naysayers in any fight for workers' rights. Yet time and again people have protested, taken action and won. Just sayin'.
Agencies have reversed many absurd announcements after protests by artists.
Just look at what was achieved with the protest against Hyperstock this year.
We also got rid of the dollar photo store by fotolia etc...
But it will mostly depend on how the income changes and we need at least all of June to see results.
But people will not upload blindly if the results are bad. Upload streams react quickly, it doesn‘t have to be deactivations, people will just leave their ports as is and focus their attention elsewhere.
The market is self regulating, nobody uploads for the occasional 10 cent sale.
Yes agreed to both of these, and it doesn't matter how many times we are successful or how recent the examples are some people will stick to their talking points.
FL and and Pond5 sank a lot of resources in to those endeavours and backed down as soon as we actually stood together, yes across borders, yet people are still ready to jump in and p**s all over any efforts. They would rather loose and be able to say I told you so then improve their own conditions and admit they were wrong.
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 11:18
It's only through port deletion that contributors can 'fight back'.
...
It's a battle you can't win, except maybe preserve your dignity and sanity by leaving SS.
No, we won't win the battle with Shutterstock, but we will preserve our dignity and sanity.
I, as part of the disgusted, disgrunted pack, will be outta SS on June 1.
I did that with iS in 2011, for exactly the same reason, and never regretted it. Don't expect to regret dumping SS either.
Post by: buddy s on May 27, 2020, 11:22
While I am as PISSED at everyone else at how this came across, I'm surprised that no one is talking about the real enemy.
For years, photographers have been dumping all kinds of microstock onto free sites like Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay all either to stroke their gigantic egos or to enter the lottery that someone will miraculously come across their portfolio and hire them for a professional gig (which happens 0.000001% of the time).
I know a ton of small business owners. NO ONE goes to Shutterstock or Adobe or iStock anymore. They all go to these sites and download "free images".
Adding insult to injury, Canva has bought up Pixabay and Pexels and is now SELLING the images those photographers gave them for FREE. Contributors don't get 10 cents, they get jack sh*t.
Again, I'm not absolving Shutterstock (or iStock before it) from blame here nor making apologies for them. But if you know someone who's contributing to one of those free sites, tell them to STOP. They are taking money out of our pockets just as bad as Shutterstock is, maybe worse.
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 11:26
You know how they always write in articles to produce unique and local content. Guess why? Because the image factories don't do that. Image factories make generic content, and that's our strength. That same generic content will probably stay, along with 1040337474 variations of waving flags of all countries, but the real content, the unique and local content? On other stock agencies.
Shutterstock knows how valuable this is. We should too.
This is so true, and it's one thing that makes me care less about departing from SS.
Everything I produce is hyper-local. American (mostly Southwestern) birds and other creatures, unique plants and places, etc.
No image factory in India or Russia is going to be able to recreate those.
But I will continue producing them and sending them to agencies other than SS.
Post by: Horizon on May 27, 2020, 11:28
It's only through port deletion that contributors can 'fight back'.
...
It's a battle you can't win, except maybe preserve your dignity and sanity by leaving SS.
No, we won't win the battle with Shutterstock, but we will preserve our dignity and sanity.
I, as part of the disgusted, disgrunted pack, will be outta SS on June 1.
I did that with iS in 2011, for exactly the same reason, and never regretted it. Don't expect to regret dumping SS either.
Amen to all that!
Post by: Elisey on May 27, 2020, 11:32
Post by: cobalt on May 27, 2020, 11:34
Long time lurker, first time poster.
While I am as PISSED at everyone else at how this came across, I'm surprised that no one is talking about the real enemy.
For years, photographers have been dumping all kinds of microstock onto free sites like Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay all either to stroke their gigantic egos or to enter the lottery that someone will miraculously come across their portfolio and hire them for a professional gig (which happens 0.000001% of the time).
I know a ton of small business owners. NO ONE goes to Shutterstock or Adobe or iStock anymore. They all go to these sites and download "free images".
Adding insult to injury, Canva has bought up Pixabay and Pexels and is now SELLING the images those photographers gave them for FREE. Contributors don't get 10 cents, they get jack sh*t.
Again, I'm not absolving Shutterstock (or iStock before it) from blame here nor making apologies for them. But if you know someone who's contributing to one of those free sites, tell them to STOP. They are taking money out of our pockets just as bad as Shutterstock is, maybe worse.
Flickr has had free images since their existence. It is called the creative commons license.
If you look at unsplash etc...and do a search for „business team“ or anything good with people and releases try finding more than 3 pages of serious, good quality content. These agencies do a lot of „window dressing“ with content that is „gifted“ by their own employees and editors, i.e. these people are paidwith their jobs.
Nobody hires models, make up,location and then uploads for free to unsplash.
If you only do grass, sunsets, flowers, you have always been competing with the creative commons and flickr.
It is your decision to work in a niche the freebie sharers donˋt do.
Maybe if you want a wood background, you can get it there, but a professional buyer needs real content with a checked model release, no logos etc...the free sites donˋt have that.
Here is a search for „business woman“ sorted by newest on Unsplash.
https://unsplash.com/s/photos/business-woman?order_by=latest
Post by: ba0504 on May 27, 2020, 11:36
Post by: Daryl Ray on May 27, 2020, 11:38
And the magic word "lawsuit"? ... massive lawsuit? and the much feared word "discrimination" so feared by companies in times of political correctness. Could it be possible to use any of that?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think, given the terms of our contributor agreement can be altered at any time to anything and without notice, there's any legal issue to bring up.
The slashing of earnings for every contributor isn't discrimination against any group, so I don't see how that applies
Illegal, discriminatory? Nope.
Despicable, shameless, greedy, heartless, disgusting? Yup.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 27, 2020, 11:46
Long time lurker, first time poster.
While I am as PISSED at everyone else at how this came across, I'm surprised that no one is talking about the real enemy.
For years, photographers have been dumping all kinds of microstock onto free sites like Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay all either to stroke their gigantic egos or to enter the lottery that someone will miraculously come across their portfolio and hire them for a professional gig (which happens 0.000001% of the time).
I know a ton of small business owners. NO ONE goes to Shutterstock or Adobe or iStock anymore. They all go to these sites and download "free images".
Adding insult to injury, Canva has bought up Pixabay and Pexels and is now SELLING the images those photographers gave them for FREE. Contributors don't get 10 cents, they get jack sh*t.
Again, I'm not absolving Shutterstock (or iStock before it) from blame here nor making apologies for them. But if you know someone who's contributing to one of those free sites, tell them to STOP. They are taking money out of our pockets just as bad as Shutterstock is, maybe worse.
It's a valid point. These sites are contributing downward pressure on pricing. I've seen tons of posts online saying stuff like "Why buy from places like Shutterstock? It's expensive. Here's a list of dozens of free sites". It doesn't matter if the images aren't good quality or have copyright issues. There are a lot of people who dont know or dont care. And they know nobody is going to sue them for saving $2 and putting the image on a blog.
In many cases, photographers and other creatives are our own worst enemies. And there is never a shortage of people to take advantage of it.
Post by: mj007 on May 27, 2020, 11:53
Dear Hackers,
we, Shutterstock contributors, are forced to fight against corporate greed. Our lifelong work is going to be reduced to 10 cents. We have creativity, you have IT knowledge. Please help us to Shut down Shutterstock!
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 27, 2020, 11:59
Post by: gnirtS on May 27, 2020, 12:02
Question. Since it's "percentage of price paid", say you have a 100 image sub for $100. If the buyer only downloads the one image, did he pay $1 for that image, or $100. Because if it's the latter, then there go immediate sales reports.
They've clarified that on the monster thread. Its going to be what you expect.
You get the share as if they used all their images. So the smallest amount. SS keep the change.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 27, 2020, 12:35
Question. Since it's "percentage of price paid", say you have a 100 image sub for $100. If the buyer only downloads the one image, did he pay $1 for that image, or $100. Because if it's the latter, then there go immediate sales reports.He paid $1 as far as we're concerned. So all these percentages are smoke and mirrors or a bait and switch anyway. What we will be getting as a percentage on a sub is going to be maximum that on the chart but in reality less, and possibly much much less in any meaningful sense.
The 35% is 35% of some sort of mythical ideal world sub where the buyers always use every sub download even on the big packs major corporations pay for (where it is actually just a cap on a practically unlimited plan). This for me is why this is so dirty.
Post by: cathyslife on May 27, 2020, 12:48
Im in the UK and have had enough with what's going on in the real world with Covid19. I can not explain how angry this has made me.
Too angry and sad to say anymore..
I am with you 100%. Enough is enough.
Post by: skysense on May 27, 2020, 12:56
I consider this to be a small victory, which basically means that a lot of us actually can do something!
Keep spamming SS on all media, social networks. Spam them with truth, nothing more. And the truth is that they are corporate greed dictatorship living on contributor backs.
Second thing is stop uploading.
Do this things and lets see what happens.
Post by: skysense on May 27, 2020, 13:07
http://chng.it/WgMFwWgRdt (http://chng.it/WgMFwWgRdt)
Post by: fritz on May 27, 2020, 13:10
Post by: Tenebroso on May 27, 2020, 13:13
Not being understood by the new rules by some collaborators, we have decided to modify the percentage that we give you for your effort and work. We will continue with absurd rejections, this will not change, since we know that it keeps them in constant tension. However, we do change the commissions.
From now on, in the mail, any day, we will receive the correction of the mail. They will explain to us that due to the success of the new plan, the new percentage is canceled. Starting in January, for the benefit of all parties, the percentage will not be quarterly, but, for its greatest success, the percentage will be monthly. This will motivate everyone to improve.
We are the agency that sells the most, and we will continue to be number one. Whatever we do, we will always be number one.
Thanks for your understanding and effort.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 27, 2020, 13:17
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-appoints-stan-pavlovsky-chief-120200966.html
And I think this says it all. The new CEO's focus is on customers and technology. No mention of contributors. Oringer does mention contributors but only in passing.
Quote
"Shutterstock is one of those rare companies which has truly disrupted its industry through technology, and I couldn't be more honored to be its next CEO," Pavlovsky said. "We have a lot of opportunities ahead and a big part of my job is to start to deliver on the next chapter of our platform strategy. As we work to execute on our strategy, we will focus on providing adjacent services that our enterprise customers require to enhance their workflow, more fully leveraging our vast pool of first-party data, and continuing to develop industry-leading proprietary technology to help our customers drive top and bottom-line improvements to their businesses. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our excellent senior leadership team, along with Jon and our entire Board."
Post by: Desintegrator on May 27, 2020, 13:25
https://www.youtube.com/user/ShutterstockInc/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/ShutterstockInc/videos)
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on May 27, 2020, 13:35
Question. Since it's "percentage of price paid", say you have a 100 image sub for $100. If the buyer only downloads the one image, did he pay $1 for that image, or $100. Because if it's the latter, then there go immediate sales reports.
They've clarified that on the monster thread. Its going to be what you expect.
You get the share as if they used all their images. So the smallest amount. SS keep the change.
That sounds like BS. Then they aren't following their rules. You are not getting a percentage of what was paid.
Post by: Horizon on May 27, 2020, 13:47
Post by: Rage on May 27, 2020, 14:01
- how steep the 35% and 40% tiers are, something most of us will never be able to touch
- If we do get to a high tier how much the reset in jan hurts us
- The stark difference how much of a paycut you'll end up taking vs now
- How in video getting back to 30% commissions will be nearly impossible
- The mix of packs is an assumption - SS will not even tell us how good/bad this is
(http://)
Post by: mj007 on May 27, 2020, 14:01
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 14:07
(https://officesnapshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/RECEPTION-2-Photo-Credit-Bilyana-Dimitrova-700x467.jpg) (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/look-inside-shutterstocks-new-hq-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
Post by: mj007 on May 27, 2020, 14:12
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 14:24
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy)
and PetaPixel picked it up too
https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ (https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/)
Post by: Mrblues101 on May 27, 2020, 14:25
I wonder if SS paid for the images on their wall or stole them....
They dont stole them, just pay 10 cents for each of them
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 27, 2020, 14:38
Post by: U11 on May 27, 2020, 14:47
I've stopped uploading to Fotolia, then I stopped uploading to Istock
now is the time to give up on SS
Pond is the last one I am not ashamed using, since I can put my own price there
time to turn the microstock page is long overdue, respect yourself, stop uploading, find something else in life
Post by: Dimco on May 27, 2020, 15:32
If i was SS, i would be terrified if the following happens:
-no new material is uploaded
-contributors leave
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
-smaller insignificant ordinary joe’s starting debate and grouping together to make a move (thats you and me)
-competitors receive new material that is top notch quality
-competitors jump on and sweeten the deal for the fleeing contributors
-Competitors advertise on the loss of SS, which then triggers more of the bad publicity...
-this does not go unnoticed and we keep the pressure on for as long as it takes! The ones that stick and do not leave. Remember, its our livelihood we are discussing here. You cannot stay passive. If you do, you deserve the next wave of 0.01$ per license. I quit iStock when i saw 0.02$/download.
-all of us start fueling the discussions on all the different forums/groups/memberships where we are part of...
-after a while we come together and make our presence (or even better) absence noticed
-Form some sort of grouping which will have some very basic rules like minimum fee if you want our assets in your offer
-journalists start writing on the subject that contributors are getting together and debating how to respond not only to SS latest move, but to all iStock’s and iStock’s 2.0 alike in the future with immediate move against the greedy SS. This will trigger even more escaping from the boat that is sinking.
-photography/video/illustrations forums need to burn from debates right now!
-marketing agencies need to notice that for fresh/relevant/top notch new material they need to look elsewhere from IStock 2.0
-their most cherished unique selling proposition, the monthly fee and download per day is gone, dead. This was what made them since it was tailored to agency’s needs. They have no USP anymore apart of the wast library of our assets. In the library, they are not alone. They are not in line with what the agencies or the wast majority of buyers (small bloggers) need. This move is to become relevant, which is ok, but not without a shared burden. Non of us will disagree if they transform the model so that we and SS share the %. The greedy part, the one sided devaluation is what wrong in this.
-we continue with our pressure, even a passive will do, remember mahatma gandi, which will force them to notice us. I do not wish them bad, they are not the enemy, their lack of visionary skills and commitment to long term mutual success is the enemy. I do not wish them bankruptcy, but their move is on a sure path for that. Lets not punish them on the weaknesses we all posses. Lets guide them before we separate our paths.
-after a while this becomes nightmare for them forcing them to back their decision. Can you imagine our satisfaction when this occurs. To be honest, for DPC initiative i supported with about 10-20% of my portfolio deletion. I was very proud when fotolia backed from their plan. If this succeeds, you will all be part of the Honored contributor appreciation 2.0. Let then some peanut agency come and propose a scheme like this. If we fail, brace yourselves for the iStock 3.0, then 4.0 and so on. You will then someday be at a bar remembering the days when you were living out of your creativity.
-they have lost a great deal of credibility here. There are the silent contributors which will vanish and their content will not be present due to lack of sustainability of the model. Regaining this credibility will take time and effort. And we have good memory and are willing to forgive, not forget. Say this was kelly’s initiative and she is fired. We apologize for this and return to normal.
Other ideas are more than welcome.
Let’s do all this and watch what happens. Anyway, its covid time and we are socially active.
Ss please reverse this bad decision and let us all focus on creating top content which we will all be proud of. Lets focus on the future together. We cannot be pushed aside and be expected to continue business as usual. We cannot survive with lower incomes, its difficult enough as it is already. If we are gone, the factories will impose stricter commissions in the future and you will be the one left out dry. Help us to help you achieve the growth you hired the new ceo for. This is done with strong partnership behavior, not slave-master relationship. We are not able to continue and we will weather away to another agency which threats contributor honestly.
Sorry for the long text, hope is not worthless
Best regards from eastern Europe, Skopje, Macedonia
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 16:13
And thank you, Dimco from eastern Europe, Skopje, Macedonia, for expressing it so well.
Here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in the southwestern portion of the USA… I'm with you!
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 27, 2020, 16:19
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
This is the key here. They already ran the numbers about how many angry contributors and files they will lose and are fine with it. Tanking stock price I doubt even crossed their mind.
Post by: Perry on May 27, 2020, 16:22
Just thinking about unticking the box June 1, but leaving the back door open...
Post by: Desintegrator on May 27, 2020, 16:26
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
This is the key here. They already ran the numbers about how many angry contributors and files they will lose and are fine with it. Tanking stock price I doubt even crossed their mind.
Sure, we have to protest in more ways that they clearly expect. They are not dumb, they do know that there will be some protest. They watched the Fotolia Deactivation-Day campaign with the slogan and website "boycottfotolia", and i remember that time they bought the domain "boycottshutterstock.com" just so others can not. So obviously they are prepared for some outrage. Yet it's not impossible exceed what they expect.
Post by: MysteryShot on May 27, 2020, 16:38
...they do not fear our outrage, but our SILENCE.
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 16:40
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
This is the key here. They already ran the numbers about how many angry contributors and files they will lose and are fine with it. Tanking stock price I doubt even crossed their mind.
Sure, we have to protest in more ways that clearly expect. They are not dumb, they do know that there will be some protest. They watched the Fotolia Deactivation-Day campaign with the slogan and website "boycottfotolia", and i remember that time they bought the domain "boycottshutterstock.com" just so others can not. So obviously they are prepared for some outrage. Yet it's not impossible exceed what they expect.
Did they buy "shutterstockboycott.com" too? :D :D :D
Post by: Shelma1 on May 27, 2020, 16:55
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
This is the key here. They already ran the numbers about how many angry contributors and files they will lose and are fine with it. Tanking stock price I doubt even crossed their mind.
Sure, we have to protest in more ways that clearly expect. They are not dumb, they do know that there will be some protest. They watched the Fotolia Deactivation-Day campaign with the slogan and website "boycottfotolia", and i remember that time they bought the domain "boycottshutterstock.com" just so others can not. So obviously they are prepared for some outrage. Yet it's not impossible exceed what they expect.
Did they buy "shutterstockboycott.com" too? :D :D :D
Nope. I own it now. Along with f*ckshutterstock.com.
I also own the Shutterstock Boycott facebook page, facebook group and twitter account.
Post by: mj007 on May 27, 2020, 16:58
Post by: wds on May 27, 2020, 17:05
Post by: mj007 on May 27, 2020, 17:17
So at what point does Microstock collapse...when will income become so low that anyone generating quality saleable imagery cannot justify the costs to produce such imagery anymore and serious newcomers will be few and farther between?...existing libraries will age out?....maybe it will coincide with computer generated imagery becoming so good that there will be less of a need for stock photography? And what of the "Premium" collections...how will they be impacted?WDS respectively I disagree with some of you items. While we have been held down by this Communist Chinese Virus my sells are actually up with the exception of Istock. What have people been doing during this Pandemic...They have been on their computer. Thus the need for good images by advertisers,teacher,blogs, ect. It still takes a person with computer skills to create a computer generated image. No this is not about an industry slowing down but a greedy *insult removed* named SS. Their SS Corp headquarters is in the most expensive city in America and also one of the dirtiest cities in America. This is pure greed. Maybe if they are going to drop our rates so drastic gives us some of their worthless SS Wall Street Stock. That way we all we be getting Fuck together.
Post by: dbvirago on May 27, 2020, 17:42
They will be no loss to me. They haven't been relevant since before Jon left.
Post by: jav on May 27, 2020, 17:43
And the magic word "lawsuit"? ... massive lawsuit? and the much feared word "discrimination" so feared by companies in times of political correctness. Could it be possible to use any of that?
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think, given the terms of our contributor agreement can be altered at any time to anything and without notice, there's any legal issue to bring up.
The slashing of earnings for every contributor isn't discrimination against any group, so I don't see how that applies
Illegal, discriminatory? Nope.
Despicable, shameless, greedy, heartless, disgusting? Yup.
In principle it is true that there is nothing illegal. But, the damage caused to thousands of independent workers, the reduction of their copyright earnings that affects an entire industry would be a matter to be analyzed. On the other hand, cultural damage is being inflicted on artistic production, which almost all countries supposedly protect, and artists are being discriminated against as a minor class of workers.
Every company has a social responsibility, above its interests.
Post by: Microstock Posts on May 27, 2020, 17:50
Folks, you need to go to Twitter and retweet the many post....search #Shutterstock....There is a lot of post but very few retweets... It just take a few minutes and your retweets can make a world of great sharing. Retweet NOW...#ShutterstockExactly! Can someone retweet this?
https://twitter.com/microstockposts/status/1265718346651140097?s=20
Post by: U11 on May 27, 2020, 17:55
So at what point does Microstock collapse...right after Uber, airbnb and many others collapse
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 18:54
-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
This is the key here. They already ran the numbers about how many angry contributors and files they will lose and are fine with it. Tanking stock price I doubt even crossed their mind.
Sure, we have to protest in more ways that clearly expect. They are not dumb, they do know that there will be some protest. They watched the Fotolia Deactivation-Day campaign with the slogan and website "boycottfotolia", and i remember that time they bought the domain "boycottshutterstock.com" just so others can not. So obviously they are prepared for some outrage. Yet it's not impossible exceed what they expect.
Did they buy "shutterstockboycott.com" too? :D :D :D
Nope. I own it now. Along with f*ckshutterstock.com.
I also own the Shutterstock Boycott facebook page, facebook group and twitter account.
LOL!!!!!!
Nice work, Shelma. I'm proud to know you!
Post by: Visualab on May 27, 2020, 19:15
If you joined it but did not receive the email I just sent out then go back in and fill it out one more time. The first ten people it didn't collect emails.
Post by: marthamarks on May 27, 2020, 19:43
The stock submitters coalition already has over 330 members and represents a portfolio of over 2 million items. Join the cause and help make a difference. https://forms.gle/cEN6kAjcqyqtUbBj9
If you joined it but did not receive the email I just sent out then go back in and fill it out one more time. The first ten people it didn't collect emails.
I just went there and signed up. Never heard of it before. Is it new, a response to this SS fiasco, or was it done earlier? Are you the one who set it up? If so, thank you!
EDITED TO ADD: Never mind answering! I just found your comment yesterday on the SS Forum:
I'm tired of being spit upon by all the different agencies. The only way to put a stop to this is if we band together. As of right now I am creating the Stock Submitters Coalition. It is and will always be free to join. My hope is that we can get enough contributors on board that the companies have to take us seriously when we bring issues to them. The first step is to get an idea of how many people would join such a coalition. I have created a form. If you are interested in putting more control back into the hands of contributors please sign the form. Also share it in every forum and social media outlet you can think of to make its presence known. https://forms.gle/zrq3RswRpYsu6jmq6
Post by: WaterView on May 27, 2020, 21:45
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 27, 2020, 21:49
Post by: mj007 on May 27, 2020, 21:50
Post by: Rage on May 27, 2020, 23:24
This is brilliant-bad publicity resulting in share price drop which in turn triggers owners dumping shares
This is the key here. They already ran the numbers about how many angry contributors and files they will lose and are fine with it. Tanking stock price I doubt even crossed their mind.
Sure, we have to protest in more ways that clearly expect. They are not dumb, they do know that there will be some protest. They watched the Fotolia Deactivation-Day campaign with the slogan and website "boycottfotolia", and i remember that time they bought the domain "boycottshutterstock.com" just so others can not. So obviously they are prepared for some outrage. Yet it's not impossible exceed what they expect.
Did they buy "shutterstockboycott.com" too? :D :D :D
Nope. I own it now. Along with f*ckshutterstock.com.
I also own the Shutterstock Boycott facebook page, facebook group and twitter account.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: stryjek on May 28, 2020, 00:54
Post by: Horizon on May 28, 2020, 02:04
Now just wait and see. Soon they will call in Oringer to plead in some giant thread here or at the SS forum and he will start the usual garble and glib about this scheme will in the long run earn us much more revenue this and that. As usual all crap talks.
Post by: Dimco on May 28, 2020, 02:22
The stock submitters coalition already has over 330 members and represents a portfolio of over 2 million items. Join the cause and help make a difference. https://forms.gle/cEN6kAjcqyqtUbBj9
If you joined it but did not receive the email I just sent out then go back in and fill it out one more time. The first ten people it didn't collect emails.
We need to open a fb group immediately and start agreeing how to move on. before you let people in, you need to evaluate them for beeing real submitters and not spies. unlocking contributors will ease the process and bring even more people in that are on the same side. you cannot do this alone and you shouldn’t be left alone. do not make this impossible for yourself. you have made first move and it was accepted. now its time for a second one. cheers
Post by: Snow on May 28, 2020, 03:22
Post by: Snow on May 28, 2020, 03:28
SS the king is dead....Long live i just don't know?
Adobe, they can still be king if they play this out smart or even do nothing except maybe hiring more people for reviewing because they will get bombarded.
Keep in mind Adobe doesn't have to rely solely on microstock income!
Post by: Snow on May 28, 2020, 03:34
we are officially homeless
I do not believe that. While the current situation looks terrible for many of us and we will loose a few hundred bucks (at least) I am sure buyers will eventually follow us and sales will improve drastically elsewhere. In my situation this will be Adobe Stock and hopefully P5 because I have already left all the other Microstock agencies.
We're not going to give up that easily guys! We've got the goods don't ever forget that!
Post by: Lizard on May 28, 2020, 04:32
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/e414149e27eb2e6cb2fa33b5d36fa12b/tenor.gif?itemid=14161225)
Post by: gnirtS on May 28, 2020, 04:34
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-may-27&ref_=pe_1822230_499149640_dpr_nl_428_14 (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-may-27&ref_=pe_1822230_499149640_dpr_nl_428_14)
Interesting - given the article quotes my posts there a lot it would have been nice to be contacted or at least told they were doing something with it!
Post by: Desintegrator on May 28, 2020, 04:38
Nope. I own it now. Along with f*ckshutterstock.com.
I also own the Shutterstock Boycott facebook page, facebook group and twitter account.
Great job! :D
I think when we make a defamatory campaign about SS, we should also point people towards Adobe. (I know it's not really health to put all the trust into one agency, but is there any better option now?)
If we tell people to boycott SS and they go to Getty instead that's not good at all.
So if we manage to convince some buyers to move away from SS we should also convince them that iStock/Getty is just as bad, or even worse
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 04:39
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-may-27&ref_=pe_1822230_499149640_dpr_nl_428_14 (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-may-27&ref_=pe_1822230_499149640_dpr_nl_428_14)It's a shame all these articles have bought into the line that the tables show the percentage we will be getting. They don't. We will be getting a lot less.
Post by: Tommy on May 28, 2020, 04:39
I can’t really afford to disable my portfolio, but I will do if it may help enact some kind of change.
It’s currently hard to be hopeful, but this feels like the last stand.
Post by: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:29
Post by: thx9000 on May 28, 2020, 05:29
Post by: spike on May 28, 2020, 05:32
It seems that they hired some indian click farm to spam their apps with positive reviews on Gplay. Just when you think they can't sink any lower...
Report it as spam. I did.
Just sort reviews by "most recent" and filter by 5 stars. Voila.
Post by: pics2 on May 28, 2020, 05:42
It is obvious that they are lying because their search engine is not designed to promote new content, it's been a while.
Post by: Dimco on May 28, 2020, 05:45
It seems that they hired some indian click farm to spam their apps with positive reviews on Gplay. Just when you think they can't sink any lower...
This is good, we are beginning to make a point. this proves that they have been forced to make an action. one step at a time, we will put more pressure and they will have to recognize. keep up the good work people, together we will succeed. continue sharing ideas and results from your actions. it motivates further action by other contributors.
lets build the energy of the momentum even more
Post by: gnirtS on May 28, 2020, 05:47
It seems that they hired some indian click farm to spam their apps with positive reviews on Gplay. Just when you think they can't sink any lower...
Possibly one of their outsourced reviewer factories got told to leave a review each.
Post by: Snow on May 28, 2020, 05:49
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-may-27&ref_=pe_1822230_499149640_dpr_nl_428_14 (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-may-27&ref_=pe_1822230_499149640_dpr_nl_428_14)
Interesting - given the article quotes my posts there a lot it would have been nice to be contacted or at least told they were doing something with it!
Argh sorry to hear that mate. I am still subscribed to their monthly email so thought I would pass the info to you guys. It would have been decent from them to contact you first and maybe even ask for more input.
But hey at least the news gets out there and you get the extra exposure! :o
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 05:51
“The new structure is designed to address market changes while creating fair opportunities for all contributors. It rewards content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and currently in-demand by our customers,”Also doesn't make sense with regards to the January reset. Rolling 12 months would make a lot more sense if this was the actual goal.
It is obvious that they are lying because their search engine is not designed to promote new content, it's been a while.
Post by: microlock on May 28, 2020, 07:53
Post by: gnirtS on May 28, 2020, 08:03
Im banned from the SS forum anyway. I thought they'd hidden all my posts (as they threatened to).
Post by: angelawaye on May 28, 2020, 09:12
I’m appalled by all this.
I can’t really afford to disable my portfolio, but I will do if it may help enact some kind of change.
It’s currently hard to be hopeful, but this feels like the last stand.
I can't really afford to disable my portfolio (especially during this time) but I'm going to. We need to act collectively to be heard.
Post by: cobalt on May 28, 2020, 09:39
Don‘t we have journalists in the community? This extremist measure is affecting 1.2 million creative artists worldwide.
If the new management team has no ethical problems treating us this way, perhaps a few critical articles can help them to „reconsider the artists point of view“?
I posted the following in the SS forums, but doubt anyone from management will read this.
After all such a shockingly negative announcent should have come directly from the CEO himself.
„ I humbly suggest the CEO and the entire management team take their own medicine and every January first have their salaries reset to an absolute minimum monthly value.
Then, as the revenue starts to grow over time, their salaries can slowly claw themselves back into the regular contract pay value.
And of course just a few months later, they happily start again at the bottom with every new year.
How „motivating and fair“ will this compensation system be for themselves and any employees??
The reset to zero value for all portfolios at New Year is exactly this...completely hypocritical and destructive and in the times of corona just cruel.
For many artists the regular income from SS is an essential part of their income, that pays the running costs for studio rent, software and all production.
Our rent, our insurance costs etc do not vanish in January. They are the same as they are in December.
I hope the new CEO does not make the mistake many new people make, believing that 1.2 million contributors makes individual contributors insignificant.
„Crowd sourced“ does not mean equal production value evenly distributed across the entire community. We are not upload robots.
It means an open plattforms where individuals can easily rise to the top.
And all contributors are deeply networked and will not simply accept to have their income crashed every January for accounting tricks of new management.
Maybe read up on what happened with Hyperstock and DPC from Fotolia.
The Upload streams of relevant content are pretty frickle, SS is not alone in this world.
So I hope they understand that contributors are equal and essential business partners in a crazy world and not upload bots with no soul or a calculator.“
Post by: Rage on May 28, 2020, 09:42
The stock submitters coalition already has over 330 members and represents a portfolio of over 2 million items. Join the cause and help make a difference. https://forms.gle/cEN6kAjcqyqtUbBj9We need to group up, maybe this discord server is a good way https://discord.gg/KucrDuy
If you joined it but did not receive the email I just sent out then go back in and fill it out one more time. The first ten people it didn't collect emails.
Things to do
- Sign petition
- Downvote apps and leave a scathing review
- Tweet it with influencers/publication /adobe mentioned
- send Angry mail to SS
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Horizon on May 28, 2020, 09:52
Post by: Uncle Pete on May 28, 2020, 10:03
Well, I am disappointed in Shutterstock and wrote them and told them so. I got a reply from someone who couldn't write best english and explained to me that because of the pandemic things were difficult. And, that maybe once things get better they will increase contributors payments/income. Sounds like the government saying, now that this crises has occurred we shall substitute these liberties just for a little while to be SAFER. HA! How much of our liberties have come back? Will we ever increase our income on Shutterstock again, or will they keep making it smaller? And, eventually become another extinct dinosaur? Too bad the founder stepped down, Looks like S#!+ moved in.
This is too rare to let it go without comment. One of their special contributors, who answers unofficially from no actual corporate backing, says "maybe once things get better they will increase contributors payments/income" Ha Ha Ha! Maybe we'll all get... doesn't matter what, that line was total blind follower BS.
Anyone else who supports this move, I'll remind you, that no agency ever has actually increased our earnings, without taking away some levels or other means of earning. (exception: Adobe removed and adjusted levels, which in general benefited all of us except people with the highest possible FT rank. Even Emeralds got a boost, contrary to what some might claim.)
“The new structure is designed to address market changes while creating fair opportunities for all contributors. It rewards content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and currently in-demand by our customers,”
It isobvious that they are lyingbecause their search engine is not designed to promote new content, it's been a while.
Sorry if your personal opinion is not supported by the real facts. New content has always been pushed to the front of the searches. Just go look next time you upload something. That doesn't mean that new will get downloads, or stay in front, as long as it once did, but, New Content is placed very favorably to give it a chance. The search is designed to promote new content.
There are many other reasons and issues, that cause new content to drop down the pages and into the pits of oblivion. :(
For those suggesting rolling rates? Not a bad idea. Only thing is, when we had the least downloads, lets say January, we'd make more and then after our rates had dropped and the Spring earnings come in, we'd be paid the least. In other words, we'd make more for the lower download months and less for the higher download months.
No I don't like the reset idea at all. But I don't like the IS quotas that changed every year and reset. Mostly, the rewards based on earnings, not number of downloads, was a good fair system. Now what we get is some half baked, based on downloads, not income and is terribly flawed. (what we earn for the company doesn't count, just download numbers?) Great if someone only gets subs. Oh but they hedged on that best too, because subs will be percentage based, not what the buyer actually pays.
I don't expect this plan to stay as it is. There are too many holes and flaws.
Adobe! well here is a golden opportunity for them to play for first place so drop all skewed algorithm's and go for it!
I like that.
What skewed algorithms? Or did you mean SS search?
Post by: Mantis on May 28, 2020, 11:01
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 28, 2020, 11:14
https://twitter.com/petapixel/status/1265739822468980737 (https://twitter.com/petapixel/status/1265739822468980737)
https://twitter.com/PhotogNews/status/1265737422161113088 (https://twitter.com/PhotogNews/status/1265737422161113088)
Also, Shutterstock has posted a sickeningly "concerned" tweet saying they know we're concerned. You could comment (as others have) on that too
"We understand our community is concerned about the new contributor earnings structure. We hear you and your feedback is important to us.
Please share any questions or concerns with our contributor support team via [email protected] and
@ShutterstockReq"
https://twitter.com/Shutterstock/status/1266003999960043521 (https://twitter.com/Shutterstock/status/1266003999960043521)
Another article published in Australia
https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2020/pay-cut-for-shutterstock-photographers/ (https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2020/pay-cut-for-shutterstock-photographers/)
Post by: obj owl on May 28, 2020, 11:34
Adobe! well here is a golden opportunity for them to play for first place so drop all skewed algorithm's and go for it!..but they won't they will probably not even realize the chance they have. Too close to home I recon.
Adobe will be under a lot of pressure if Shutterstock and Istock have a discounting war to regain market share. Just not letting them do it with your content will ease the burden a touch on Adobe.
Post by: Symbiostock Official on May 28, 2020, 11:56
Rather than reward long term earners, reset the competition to be yearly based on the assumption that there will always be a new flock of contributors that easily replace those disenchanted veterans that produce less.
This is advantageous to SS because each download a veteran earns costs them more money than a download a new contributor earns. So this is similar to firing long term employees who are earning more money in favor of new blood who will have to work their way to a higher wage, resetting the process every year.
They are certainly allowed to do this, but we would have thought they are already earning enough by keeping nearly 85% of everything. Unfortunate turn of events, and this is extremely unfair to contributors who have built up their portfolio of sales for a number of years.
Post by: mj007 on May 28, 2020, 12:17
Post by: Desintegrator on May 28, 2020, 12:28
The only thing that SS will cares about is their Wall Street Stock price. I urge everyone to send stores/reports to ever business news outlet. Such as CNN,CNBC,Investors Daily,Fox Business,Wall Street Report and the other 1000 business reports. Just send links of these Microstockgroup post. No business wants to see their name in a negative way in any business report. Post stories/post on Linkedin. If SS dose this and I only have to assume they will do it. All the other stock sites will follow and reduce their rates to contributors. The other stock sites have nothing to lose but gain more of your revenue.
Would be great to see some articles along the lines of "Desperate move from Shutterstock to squeeze its supply chain"... Unfortunatally i don't have any contacts to help spreading such news, but if anyone has, go on by all means!
Or even better: Shutterstock stepping on the path that killed IStock
Post by: marthamarks on May 28, 2020, 13:18
Or even better: Shutterstock stepping on the path that killed IStock
That's a great message. Especially because (I suspect) it's true!
Post by: DallasP on May 28, 2020, 13:35
Post by: mj007 on May 28, 2020, 13:51
Post by: aprott on May 28, 2020, 14:56
Here is a way to beat SS. Unfortunately I have not the intellect to design this . As a group setup a new site, with free images. Yes free images, might as well be free if SS and the other sites go with this new model. Hard to beat free. Not even the evil SS can beat free. You have a site that is just like every other site with the difference all images/videos are free. To get a free image you have to listen to a 30-60 second add . Just like the adds on youtube. The difference you can't rush are turn off the add. At the end of the advertisement you get a unique number/code for one free picture or video that day. You can get as many pictures per day as you listen to different adds and get different codes.The codes are only good per image per 24 hours. The the payout which I guess is small , you get an advertising fee for showing the add. No this most likely won't get you more money than the slims at SS but free is hard to beat. No sure what those adds pay but I am guessing 20 to 40 cents each. You could also charge a yearly fee like Costco dose, maybe 29 bucks a year to make a little more revenue.I just read, that you can earn 1,50$ to 7,00$ per 1000 views on Youtube. Doesn't sound too good of a business case.
Post by: cobalt on May 28, 2020, 15:27
But the reset to zero every January, that really has to go.
I hope pond5 and Adobe react and invite us with a statement of reliability and respect.
I have never heard of any agency, or any company, who tells their business partners, every new year we reset you to zero, you have absolutely no value for us.
https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings)
This is a really, really sad week, Shutterstock was a very reliable, drama free place.
This kind of money grab in the middle of the corona crisis is unbelievably cruel and heartless.
Post by: PigsInSpace on May 28, 2020, 15:45
Post by: georgep7 on May 28, 2020, 15:50
Quote
And thank you, Dimco from eastern Europe, Skopje, Macedonia, for expressing it so well.
Offtopic but this was supposed to be North Macedonia.
Macedonia is located in Greece. Haven't you watched the News and the aggrement between our countries?
Post by: cobalt on May 28, 2020, 16:00
How long did Dollar Photo Club last? It’s unfortunately/fortunately before my time, so I’ve only heard about it anecdotally here.
Not long, Adobe bought Fotolia and immediately killed the Dollar photo club.
The original problem was that they took all our content without asking us and placed it all on dollar photo.
So there was a HUGE shitstorm and mass deactivations of files and portfolios. I think they lost 15% of all their content in 3 weeks. Millions of files were deactivated. Especially the Russian speaking community was absolutely furious and showed very strong and very painful deactivation commitment and leadership.
Fotolia then backtracked, apologized and offered us an opt out button. Plus for those who decided to keep their content on DPC they paid them an additional bonus on Fotolia itself.
This way there was balance, those who wanted out of dpc could get out, those who didn‘t mind, got something extra.
But the DPC didn‘t succeed and then Adobe closed them down.
Which is why Hyperstock from pond5 brought a deja vue to all of us and contributors pushed for opt outs or to have it killed.
If an agency opens and says we will sell everything for one dollar...they know they will never get good content.
So agencies use sneaky ways to use our files, hoping we won‘t notice or won‘t react.
The „reset to zero“ every January is the most cruel thing I have ever heard of.
Contributors are human beings, not upload slaves.
Post by: georgep7 on May 28, 2020, 16:06
Now, check out the CC0 image use notice on the article and you got why noone except us cares
:/
Post by: marthamarks on May 28, 2020, 16:08
bahahaha. They're going to send me my $12.53 and deactivate my ... ~100 crappy vectors.
Will they give a payout if one leaves before reaching the $35 threshold??
I don't believe so.
Post by: ArenaCreative on May 28, 2020, 16:11
Post by: Rage on May 28, 2020, 22:09
https://twitter.com/Tickeron/status/1266116463070343168?s=19
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on May 28, 2020, 22:13
Whatever this means for our royalties, they are getting so low nowadays that who the heck even cares... I would encourage anyone who does microstock for a full time living (if that is even possible, in this day and age) to drastically re-think their priorities in life. You have zero control over anything. Find a business model that you have more control over, and pursue that.
Yep. There will only be worse changes. Most people seemed to think SS was trustworthy so this should be the absolute wakeup call. If this is your primary or significant income, you should be planning an exit or you're setting yourself up for financial ruin. Even if this change doesn't severely affect you, the next one will.
Post by: marthamarks on May 28, 2020, 23:14
Well the shutterstock stock is dropping. A ton of retweeting of this might just help them on the way down
https://twitter.com/Tickeron/status/1266116463070343168?s=19
Excellent news!!! Let's keep it up, friends.
Post by: gnirtS on May 28, 2020, 23:59
As expected a few pages of 1* reviews from contributors BUT the more worrying thing from SS own perspective is after that its made up nearly entirely of 1* reviews from BUYERS complaining about poor support, sneaky wording, unable to cancel and all kinds of things.
They do NOT have happy, smiling customers on there. Contributors they can ignore, customers they cant.
Post by: cobalt on May 29, 2020, 00:21
Ive never bothered looking before but i just looked at SS on Trustpilot ( https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com (https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com) )
As expected a few pages of 1* reviews from contributors BUT the more worrying thing from SS own perspective is after that its made up nearly entirely of 1* reviews from BUYERS complaining about poor support, sneaky wording, unable to cancel and all kinds of things.
They do NOT have happy, smiling customers on there. Contributors they can ignore, customers they cant.
People skills are something you either have or you don‘t.
If they are abusive and heartless towards contributors, they will also behave that way to customers.
And they won‘t be able to choose good quality new staff because again they lack the necessary people skills to identify them.
It is a vicious circle.
For Adobe this year will be the easiest in business.
Shutterstock is acively driving customers and artists towards them.
Post by: Roscoe on May 29, 2020, 01:14
Post by: Horizon on May 29, 2020, 01:17
Post by: ribtoks on May 29, 2020, 01:19
Currently if you have around 100 monthly video downloads, you will loose around 2.5% of earnings for the whole year. But if you have only 20 video downloads per month, you will loose as much as 19% in total earnings. You can check more numbers in the blog
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on May 29, 2020, 01:45
But if you have only 20 video downloads per month, you will loose as much as 19% in total earnings.
26%... if you include the 10 lots of 15% and the 40 lots of 20%.
Post by: cobalt on May 29, 2020, 02:11
Despite all the protest and people pulling their portfolio's, Shutterstock database gained roughly 100.000 images yesterday.
Donˋt worry about that. They usually get over 2 million a week, so this is already lower than average.
It takes time for artists to think about this and make decisions.
Even the lowest paying agencies get some content every week, but when the income goes down the uploads go down.
I am sure many people are also hoping Shutterstock will withdraw the new system.
Because if they don’t 1.2 million contributors will massively swamp the internet and recommend all customers and their own clients to switch to Adobe. It just takes a few clicks.
Nobody will recommend a company that just decided to crash your income every January first.
The plan is insane and to announce this in the middle of a pandemic cruel and heartless.
Post by: Rage on May 29, 2020, 03:02
First your family, since an earning drop for you affects them hugely.
The idea is to get SS to rely even more heavily on paid reviews that can be marked as spam.
On twitter, They've already started asking users to just share their portfolio using #shutterstock to ensure that not all tweets are grossly negative. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200529/a8a5d75ab0290bc1ca7455cba9f2ec93.jpg)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: pics2 on May 29, 2020, 03:21
Very well said! But, there is one thing that we all here get wrong. Most of the artist have the same workflow - sending their work to all the agencies at the same time. So, Adobe is not going to profit from this regarding artists' work, unfortunately.Ive never bothered looking before but i just looked at SS on Trustpilot ( https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com (https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com) )
As expected a few pages of 1* reviews from contributors BUT the more worrying thing from SS own perspective is after that its made up nearly entirely of 1* reviews from BUYERS complaining about poor support, sneaky wording, unable to cancel and all kinds of things.
They do NOT have happy, smiling customers on there. Contributors they can ignore, customers they cant.
People skills are something you either have or you don‘t.
If they are abusive and heartless towards contributors, they will also behave that way to customers.
And they won‘t be able to choose good quality new staff because again they lack the necessary people skills to identify them.
It is a vicious circle.
For Adobe this year will be the easiest in business.
Shutterstock is acively driving customers and artists towards them.
Post by: Rage on May 29, 2020, 03:47
With the new rates a file earns almost 3x to 8x more in some cases on Adobe. So even if one in 5 people move to Adobe to buy my images/videos I'll be profitable.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: pics2 on May 29, 2020, 03:48
I know you have problem with this, but, sorry, people from exYugoslavia still call it Macedonia (Makedonija) in everyday language and will always do. As part of exYugoslavia, one of six republics it was called Makedonija. It was political victory for Greece and a lot of potential votes for leading party for next elections, but nothing more than that. Makedonija is still Makedonija.Quote
And thank you, Dimco from eastern Europe, Skopje, Macedonia, for expressing it so well.
Offtopic but this was supposed to be North Macedonia.
Macedonia is located in Greece. Haven't you watched the News and the aggrement between our countries?
Post by: Visualab on May 29, 2020, 04:17
if you want to make this story public we need a journalist who writes an article about this and make it viral all over place...
Post by: Lizard on May 29, 2020, 04:36
Quote
And thank you, Dimco from eastern Europe, Skopje, Macedonia, for expressing it so well.
Offtopic but this was supposed to be North Macedonia.
Macedonia is located in Greece. Haven't you watched the News and the aggrement between our countries?
I watched, heard about the agreement and I still say they have every right to call themself as they wish disregarding any documents their politicians were forced to sign by blatant blackmails. :)
Post by: georgep7 on May 29, 2020, 04:57
An agreement is a agreement.
Either between countries either between contributors and agencies.
So SS might also say, c'mon this is how always was going and done dudes.
Post by: Snow on May 29, 2020, 05:01
i wonder how many people complaining here are still submitting to istock getty or subs plans that pay you way less than ss...said that the reset on the 1th january is absolutely a money grab!!! they could take in account the year before instead of reset everything...but ss knows that artists will not close their port because as happened with getty istock many of them are still there...
if you want to make this story public we need a journalist who writes an article about this and make it viral all over place...
This is sadly true. Many are still providing those who are leading the race to the bottom so should not be surprised by this move.
I only submit to SS, AS, P5 and AL and will not take anything less then 30%. I have lost hundreds of dollars by doing this but never regretted my decision.
I still believe that when enough of us move shop our buyers will follow so sales will improve. It doesn't matter which agency. We are not as replaceable as some think on this forum. We're not robots yet :o
Post by: pics2 on May 29, 2020, 05:03
I have to disagree. I wish you all well, we are all contributors and what we say?Disagree with what? People calling it Makedonija in everyday language? There is nothing to be agreed upon, it is a fact. As I said the agreement is there, it will be officially called Northern Macedonia, but people won't call it that outside Greece. In US yes, but I bet americans don't even know where it is.
An agreement is a agreement.
Either between countries either between contributors and agencies.
So SS might also say, c'mon this is how always was going and done dudes.
Post by: Lizard on May 29, 2020, 05:11
I have to disagree. I wish you all well, we are all contributors and what we say?
An agreement is a agreement.
Either between countries either between contributors and agencies.
So SS might also say, c'mon this is how always was going and done dudes.
If so..
My country and your country dont have any agreements about how am I gonna call Macedonia in public or formal speech and you have not any grounds at all to correct me whatsoever.
Also an agency didnt come to me a force me to sign a contract with them if i want to hold camera in my hands and even if i signed that it would not be legally valid by any law.
It is also interesting how Greece was not trying to force that agreements on Yugoslavia all those years when "REPUBLIC" of Macedonia was constitutional part of it. ;D
Post by: georgep7 on May 29, 2020, 05:31
be well
Post by: 2dvector on May 29, 2020, 05:55
“Amazing app”
“Beautiful app”
“Great app”.
They permanently lost my trust in them, amazing how they turned out.
Post by: Dimco on May 29, 2020, 06:08
you are correct, I cannot dictate you anything
be well
Be well you too. So happy that we can come to an agreement.
The idea behind me writing where i come from was that we can all somehow feel more connected.
it would be nice to see more engagement from people all over the globe trying to fix thier common issues.
So you know that there is a contributor behind, trying to make ends meet in this tough environment that is changing everyday, where we are forced to make tough choices in order to survive. the framework we operate in is the toughest there is, you couldn’t get any more competitors than the whole world. this and in fact anytime is the time to be smart and act towards achieving our common goal. you and everybody’s effort should be directed towards what can you do today so that we can all benefit. i’ll do the same and we will be better off bocause of it.
do not let penny differences divide us, we are together in this, we, the contributors!
all the best,
love, unity, respect, responsible, tough and smart
Post by: jjneff on May 29, 2020, 06:25
Post by: cobalt on May 29, 2020, 07:10
Very well said! But, there is one thing that we all here get wrong. Most of the artist have the same workflow - sending their work to all the agencies at the same time. So, Adobe is not going to profit from this regarding artists' work, unfortunately.Ive never bothered looking before but i just looked at SS on Trustpilot ( https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com (https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com) )
As expected a few pages of 1* reviews from contributors BUT the more worrying thing from SS own perspective is after that its made up nearly entirely of 1* reviews from BUYERS complaining about poor support, sneaky wording, unable to cancel and all kinds of things.
They do NOT have happy, smiling customers on there. Contributors they can ignore, customers they cant.
People skills are something you either have or you don‘t.
If they are abusive and heartless towards contributors, they will also behave that way to customers.
And they won‘t be able to choose good quality new staff because again they lack the necessary people skills to identify them.
It is a vicious circle.
For Adobe this year will be the easiest in business.
Shutterstock is acively driving customers and artists towards them.
Not really. Agencies like 123rf or the hundred other small places have tiny levels of files. Very few companies have over 100 million.
If there is no money in it, people don‘t upload, the system is pretty self selecting.
Personally I just supply SS, Adobe, Pond5, eyeem (sometimes stocksy). I just recently looked at istock again for older content, because inspite of the 15%, they do have sales.
I have dead ports on alamy, dreamstime, deposit etc...but I really don‘t have the time to upload everywhere.
But the most powerful is not just the upload streams, it is that many people in the producer community are designers and buyers of content.
You buy where you like the content offered and usually you will then also upload to these companies to get back what you pay for pictures.
In the end this is how istock started it all - designers exchanging their files for free to help each other.
So if SS is upsetting 1.2 million creatives it is certainly going to be an adavantage for other places.
Their sales team can even point out that they are an „ethical“ company that supports creatives and does not set them back to zero every year. There are many customers that care.
Post by: Thomas from France on May 29, 2020, 07:14
I wrote some python code that retweet and like every single tweet with the #BoycottShutterstock hashtag.
if anyone is interested , let me know
Post by: wds on May 29, 2020, 07:29
Post by: thx9000 on May 29, 2020, 07:34
Their Google Play apps are being flooded with 5Stars reviews from India:My favorite is "Fabulous, Fantabulous, Freedom" , also indian
“Amazing app”
“Beautiful app”
“Great app”.
They permanently lost my trust in them, amazing how they turned out.
Post by: Sky on May 29, 2020, 07:47
http://chng.it/BMGqx9bPdC (http://chng.it/BMGqx9bPdC) Change.org
Post by: 2dvector on May 29, 2020, 07:53
They purchased www.boycottshutterstock.com (http://www.boycottshutterstock.com) and redirected it to their main website.
Apparently they are screwing with us big time :)
Post by: jjneff on May 29, 2020, 07:56
Post by: Desintegrator on May 29, 2020, 08:43
Another brilliant move from our beloved Company:
They purchased [url=http://www.boycottshutterstock.com]www.boycottshutterstock.com[/url] ([url]http://www.boycottshutterstock.com[/url]) and redirected it to their main website.
Apparently they are screwing with us big time :)
They have purchased it a few years ago during the boycottFotolia campaign
Post by: thx9000 on May 29, 2020, 08:44
Another brilliant move from our beloved Company:
They purchased [url=http://www.boycottshutterstock.com]www.boycottshutterstock.com[/url] ([url]http://www.boycottshutterstock.com[/url]) and redirected it to their main website.
Apparently they are screwing with us big time :)
This is from 6.5.2014 but it definitely shows they fear they might suffer something like the DPC boycott back then
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/05/06/is-shutterstock-worried-about-a-boycott/ (https://domainnamewire.com/2014/05/06/is-shutterstock-worried-about-a-boycott/)
Post by: Lizard on May 29, 2020, 11:38
Just so you know.
You can still see it from the link but on login it says suspended.
Post by: Rage on May 29, 2020, 12:18
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Lizard on May 29, 2020, 12:34
Your account has been suspended and you therefore do not have permission to access this site.
Your suspension will be lifted on June 30, 2020.
Does this stand for forum only or the site and forum are connected ?
Post by: Desintegrator on May 29, 2020, 12:40
So now Im getting this on forum.
Your account has been suspended and you therefore do not have permission to access this site.
Your suspension will be lifted on June 30, 2020.
Does this stand for forum only or the site and forum are connected ?
I suspect it's just the forum only. Your images are still up. And the that ban with time limit sounds very forum-like. But why can't you just try it?
Post by: obj owl on May 29, 2020, 12:40
So now Im getting this on forum.
Your account has been suspended and you therefore do not have permission to access this site.
Your suspension will be lifted on June 30, 2020.
Does this stand for forum only or the site and forum are connected ?
Give us your username and password and I will check it out for you.
Post by: Lizard on May 29, 2020, 12:44
My portfolio is still on but head shot and tagline are gone and on any my images my name is blurred but the link to portfolio page works :)
For example...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/grunge-frame-distressed-texture-large-high-652846978 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/grunge-frame-distressed-texture-large-high-652846978)
Post by: mj007 on May 29, 2020, 12:46
Post by: Lizard on May 29, 2020, 12:46
So now Im getting this on forum.
Your account has been suspended and you therefore do not have permission to access this site.
Your suspension will be lifted on June 30, 2020.
Does this stand for forum only or the site and forum are connected ?
Give us your username and password and I will check it out for you.
Sorry, Im not getting this. Where would you check ?
Post by: Desintegrator on May 29, 2020, 12:53
So now Im getting this on forum.
Your account has been suspended and you therefore do not have permission to access this site.
Your suspension will be lifted on June 30, 2020.
Does this stand for forum only or the site and forum are connected ?
Give us your username and password and I will check it out for you.
Sorry, Im not getting this. Where would you check ?
I think he meant if you cannot try if you can log in to your account or not and it works or not, who else can?
Post by: Desintegrator on May 29, 2020, 13:00
People who want to quit Shutterstock altogether should first just change their screen names to "Use Adobe Stock if you value creators"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 29, 2020, 13:50
Interesting
My portfolio is still on but head shot and tagline are gone and on any my images my name is blurred but the link to portfolio page works :)
For example...
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/grunge-frame-distressed-texture-large-high-652846978 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/grunge-frame-distressed-texture-large-high-652846978)
I see they've blanked it out but the gallery URL still shows your user name
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gordan (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gordan)
And a google search for gordan shows a result for your portfolio, so they can only "disappear" you so far.
Pretty pathetic and childish of them, IMO
Post by: mj007 on May 29, 2020, 14:00
Post by: Shelma1 on May 29, 2020, 14:10
Another brilliant move from our beloved Company:
They purchased [url=http://www.boycottshutterstock.com]www.boycottshutterstock.com[/url] ([url]http://www.boycottshutterstock.com[/url]) and redirected it to their main website.
Apparently they are screwing with us big time :)
If anyone wants to do something with shutterstockboycott.com, just let me know. If someone built something all of us could visit...
Post by: mj007 on May 29, 2020, 14:14
Post by: Astrantia on May 29, 2020, 14:43
Object to the decline in Shutterstock's Contributor earnings - Sign the Petition!
[url]http://chng.it/BMGqx9bPdC[/url] ([url]http://chng.it/BMGqx9bPdC[/url]) Change.org
signed ;)
Post by: mj007 on May 29, 2020, 15:03
Post by: zsooofija on May 29, 2020, 15:22
So now Im getting this on forum.
Your account has been suspended and you therefore do not have permission to access this site.
Your suspension will be lifted on June 30, 2020.
Does this stand for forum only or the site and forum are connected ?
How pathetic, also the blurred name. It's crazy.
Can you still access the contributor homepage?
I think this looks like they are not going to change their minds, they don't care about the bad PR.
Regardless I am going to deactivate on june 1st.
Post by: Dimco on May 29, 2020, 16:08
Bravo Yayimages - sent out email announcing their future plans and the help they provide for contributors getting their portfolio online
Big, Big bravo for Dreamstime - just recieved an email with 10% bigger royalties for contributors!
Bravo Again!
Deposit is also very helpful agency
This was what i was talking about in my initial post from 2 days ago.
Check your emails people
Feeling the heat?
We are changing the landscape, slowly but we are getting traction.
both moves, the india phone factoriesand the contributors status cover proves something is being done.
iStock 2.0, have you had enough? do you need more heat? its up to you! If i were you, i would stop this nonsense and cheap tactics since they devalue your credibility even faster. let’s cut this negativity and get on to business. lets discuss together and i’m sure we can come to an agreement. we are not unresonable, but you are leaving us no choice. we cannot survive this move.
Your turn!
Post by: NeonRobot on May 29, 2020, 16:40
All new stuff will go to better places.
Follow me.
Post by: somethingpretentious on May 29, 2020, 23:57
The commission numbers in the table posted by Shutterstock are simply not true, and yet we all talk about them as if they were true. Well, they are not, they are lower!
This is due to the fact that most clients do not download the maximum amount allowed in the subscription. This is especially true for the larger subscription packages.
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%.
Shutterstock knows the average % of downloads used for all their packages and subscriptions and they would be able to provide the contributors with the real average commissions for each tier.
Don't contributors have a right to know the real commission?
I suggest we do not buy into their narrative and stop saying things like “contributors are getting 15% at tier 1 and 40% at tier 6” when this is in fact not true. I suggest we instead say “contributors are getting 0-15% at tier 1 and 0-40% at tier 6”, as this is true.
Post by: gnirtS on May 30, 2020, 00:10
So far at least my account seems to be up though.
Post by: Artist on May 30, 2020, 00:26
I got banned from the forum very early on after posting a PM from the moderators telling me to stop asking questions. Fair enough, was expecting it.
So far at least my account seems to be up though.
wow... this is brutal... where is freedom of speech?
Post by: gnirtS on May 30, 2020, 00:36
I got banned from the forum very early on after posting a PM from the moderators telling me to stop asking questions. Fair enough, was expecting it.
So far at least my account seems to be up though.
wow... this is brutal... where is freedom of speech?
To be fair its their forums so their rules, they dont have to have freedom of speech....legally! (Morally however...).
It seems looking at the huge SS thread the moderators have gone into hiding and not posting now BUT are hiding posts behind the scenes. The thread has dropped in length 3 pages suddenly with no admin posts at all so they're censoring in the background whilst ignoring the points made.
I suspect most SS contributors on their forum are unaware this group exists so its an easy way of closing them down.
Im not complaining about being banned - i was PMd and warned to stop asking questions because it wasnt constructive. Obviously i disagree with that statement. Then said if i carried on they'd hide my posts.
So knowing full well i'd get banned i thought it better to share the PM so people could see how they were handling this.
What is disturbing that on here and their FB groups some people are reporting their accounts have been terminated as well. That hasn't happened to me (yet?) but thats a very disturbing new low for them if true.
They've just introduced a potentially lethal new policy for contributors and censoring them on the forum is one thing but if they're actively closing accounts as well that really is bad.
Do they really expect people just to say "10 cents? cool. Thanks!" and accept it?
Post by: Rage on May 30, 2020, 01:33
Talk about oliver twist types of authority
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Deyan Georgiev Photography on May 30, 2020, 03:45
In Elements for example you get 50% of the pool and divided bonus from the unused amount. No matter in this case if it is fair or not in each particular agency, but let it be clear.
Post by: gnirtS on May 30, 2020, 03:59
I saw a lot of comments, but I still can't understand how this will work. I understood that Shutterstock change the commissions from fixed amount to percentage, would someone explain % of what? As to calculate percent you need reference amount.
In Elements for example you get 50% of the pool and divided bonus from the unused amount. No matter in this case if it is fair or not in each particular agency, but let it be clear.
You can go onto the SS site (customer end) and see the available price plans and work most out from there.
Although they are apparently changing them.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 30, 2020, 04:18
I saw a lot of comments, but I still can't understand how this will work. I understood that Shutterstock change the commissions from fixed amount to percentage, would someone explain % of what? As to calculate percent you need reference amount.They said a few times but keeps getting buried by fast moving threads. It's calculated in the worst possible way for us. Percentage based on if buyers used all dls. So the percentages they are pushing are total BS. We will actually be getting a lot less as a percentage of what the buyer pays.
In Elements for example you get 50% of the pool and divided bonus from the unused amount. No matter in this case if it is fair or not in each particular agency, but let it be clear.
Post by: blue on May 30, 2020, 04:45
I saw a lot of comments, but I still can't understand how this will work. I understood that Shutterstock change the commissions from fixed amount to percentage, would someone explain % of what? As to calculate percent you need reference amount.Have a look at this post upper in this thread : https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-just-became-istock-2-0/msg549810/#msg549810 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-just-became-istock-2-0/msg549810/#msg549810)
In Elements for example you get 50% of the pool and divided bonus from the unused amount. No matter in this case if it is fair or not in each particular agency, but let it be clear.
Mrblues101 has made calculations for us. The table is not exhaustive but you can figure out how the new scheme works.
Post by: blue on May 30, 2020, 04:53
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.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 !
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%.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 30, 2020, 05:22
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.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 !
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 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.
Post by: Artist on May 30, 2020, 06:09
We made shutterstock and we deserve this.
They should quit their empire state office and take a low cost space. There are plenty of way to do cost cutting in backend instead of cutting royalty cost of contributors.
They should take all the possible steps to reduce running expenses and share those savings with contributors.
Its a digital marketplace, they need not to do extreme showoff in real world.
Post by: Noedelhap on May 30, 2020, 07:40
I think.. SS should do a fair 50/50 share deal with contributors.
We made shutterstock and we deserve this.
They should quit their empire state office and take a low cost space. There are plenty of way to do cost cutting in backend instead of cutting royalty cost of contributors.
They should take all the possible steps to reduce running expenses and share those savings with contributors.
Its a digital marketplace, they need not to do extreme showoff in real world.
Yes and no, public image does play a role. A big corporation like Shutterstock needs to be in a premium location. Imagine if Shutterstock was operating from some run-down shed somewhere in a third-world country, without any way for potential business partners and capital investors to visit them on location. That wouldn't express any professionalism.
There is this quote from the movie American Beauty: "In order to be successful one must project an image of success at all times."
Having said that, those office space expenses shouldn't come out of contributors' pockets.
Post by: Artist on May 30, 2020, 08:33
I think.. SS should do a fair 50/50 share deal with contributors.
We made shutterstock and we deserve this.
They should quit their empire state office and take a low cost space. There are plenty of way to do cost cutting in backend instead of cutting royalty cost of contributors.
They should take all the possible steps to reduce running expenses and share those savings with contributors.
Its a digital marketplace, they need not to do extreme showoff in real world.
Yes and no, public image does play a role. A big corporation like Shutterstock needs to be in a premium location. Imagine if Shutterstock was operating from some run-down shed somewhere in a third-world country, without any way for potential business partners and capital investors to visit them on location. That wouldn't express any professionalism.
There is this quote from the movie American Beauty: "In order to be successful one must project an image of success at all times."
Having said that, those office space expenses shouldn't come out of contributors' pockets.
I agree and disagree with you here.
I believe their account books needs to be strong enough to speak for them.
And empire state building owns a huge running expense to shutterstock.
If the showbiz and premium locations is important, then they should also respect the contributors equally.
It should be both side win win situation.
Post by: Bart on May 30, 2020, 08:37
Question , I think I know the answer. Is any SS contributor/s on the board of Directors of SS. I assume not... If so why . not . Without Contributors you have no SS. Most Corporations have 6-15 board members. SS needs Photographer Contributors on their board. I do assure you this bad revenue decision was voted yes by the SS board of Directors..
Post by: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 08:37
You need to skip all the new comments from frustrated producers, but these comments by customers are frightening.
https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com?page=7 (https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com?page=7)
Looks like they had quite a few changes in the last years that I wasn‘t aware of.
In 2019 they had a problem with illustrators and apparently many left because SS totally ignored them.
That whole „dealing with people thing“ is not really working for them anymore?
Post by: Mrblues101 on May 30, 2020, 09:59
On facebook somebody pointed out that they have really bad reviews from customers.
You need to skip all the new comments from frustrated producers, but these comments by customers are frightening.
https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com?page=7 (https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com?page=7)
Looks like they had quite a few changes in the last years that I wasn‘t aware of.
In 2019 they had a problem with illustrators and apparently many left because SS totally ignored them.
That whole „dealing with people thing“ is not really working for them anymore?
On May 2019 they changed the way you upload vector illustrations in a way that if you create for SS the final files was completly incompatible with other MS agencies; i think you mean that.
Some vector illustrators left SS because of that.
Post by: Rage on May 30, 2020, 10:08
On facebook somebody pointed out that they have really bad reviews from customers.Never knew all this. Guess it tells you that unless we are vocal then even the buyers are not aware of our problems. Like we are unaware of their problems
You need to skip all the new comments from frustrated producers, but these comments by customers are frightening.
https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com?page=7 (https://ca.trustpilot.com/review/www.shutterstock.com?page=7)
Looks like they had quite a few changes in the last years that I wasn‘t aware of.
In 2019 they had a problem with illustrators and apparently many left because SS totally ignored them.
That whole „dealing with people thing“ is not really working for them anymore?
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: wollwerth on May 30, 2020, 12:06
Post by: Rage on May 30, 2020, 13:04
Post by: gnirtS on May 30, 2020, 13:09
On facebook somebody pointed out that they have really bad reviews from customers.
I think that was me ;)
Must admit ive been submitting for 10 years this month (yay. anniversary....) but id never really looked at them as a company. I just assumed they were doing OK, never looked into buyers side and just submitted.
It's literally only after these changes i started exploring their reputation and the trustpilot is shocking. As is a lot of twitter.
I expected bad reviews from contributors, that was exected but to be honest, potential customers dont care at all about that. Not their problem.
What i wasnt expecting were the uniformly terrible reviews from CUSTOMERS. That is a problem.
The same problems crop up constantly. Charged early for services, hidden and outright nasty terms and conditions, unresponsive or rude support and so on. Not just a few times. Hundreds of times.
Another potential issue is maybe the *type* of customer. A lot of complaints are along the lines of "i signed up for a free trial for a month because i wanted some free images for a website then got charged when i tried to cancel".
If a lot of their customers are only after 1 month of freebies and fully intend to cancel they again have a problem. Those are not the customers you want at all.
Over and over again you see "free trial is a scam. autorenew is a scam. Charged 4 days early. Double charged and support blamed me for clicking twice. Keep taking money 2 years after cancel. Fraudsters. Deceptive business practices. Everything a business shouldn’t be! ".
Theres one "Shutterstock are selling my stolen images" as well. And thats just the last 3 months of reviews.
Those aren't my words, not my accusations - they're direct quotes off the last few months customer reviews.
I found 1 good review from a happy customer. The other 4 good reviews ironically were people happy with the service because they managed to cancel in their free trial without being charged!
I know happy people seldom love reviews and unhappy ones usually do but ive not come across a company with as many uniformly bad reviews on there from actual customers before.
570 reviews. 5% are good or excellent. 93% are poor or bad.
If you were a buyer and considering a stock site, would you seriously consider them after browsing that?
So for me the company despite being a massive, bloated entity could actually be in trouble:-
(i) A huge number of customers are *extremely* unhappy with them. Reputation is important and theirs is not good.
(ii) Quite a few "customers" are after quick freebies with no intention of actually subscribing long term
(iii) They've seriously angered contributors
(iv) Time and time again huge portfolios of stolen images for sale with slow or very slow action to address it
(v) The library in general is a mess. Tagging, similars etc
(vi) share price is on a constant downward trend
(vii) competition is getting stronger (AS etc)
(viii) Microstock itself could be in a depress state for a while due to covid etc.
(ix) The unpatched security bugs allowing anyone to steal images or videos at will which have been around for a few years and still sadly work and documented even on youtube.
Its not likely to vanish any time soon but its time at the top might be drawing to a close. None of the things above point to a good outcome without a severe change of management and shakeup.
Lets put it this way, if you were a small business in the market for a sensible stock subscription package, after doing research would you choose SS ? If you're an individual, the same question?
Or a major company?
(yes i was bored enough to read through about 30 pages of reviews before realising they were all the same).
Post by: Dimco on May 30, 2020, 13:39
Well done, you really made an investigation for this!
Post by: Mantis on May 30, 2020, 13:40
gnirtS. ^^^
Well done, you really made an investigation for this!
Agree. Thanks for the work you have done here.
Post by: Rage on May 30, 2020, 13:48
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 15:11
I suppose if many graphic designers liked sourcing content for their media projects from them, they only uploaded there to pay for the content they used for client projects.
It is sad SS is bunkering down instead of working with the community. Their own community.
Somebody wrote how the Alamy CEO went on video to announce changes and after a shitstorm apologized personally again.
Did the new Shutterstock CEO ever introduce himself to the producer community online? Does he have an inspiring blog to impress customers and the design world?
Has he ever commented actively on the SS forums?
I will be uploading to Alamy again, I do stock longterm and being warm and human counts.
Post by: awc1 on May 30, 2020, 15:14
Google Translate sorry :)
Post by: fritz on May 30, 2020, 15:28
Post by: marthamarks on May 30, 2020, 15:39
I just looked through their Trustpilot reviews for the first time. Good Lord, how had I not known this?
I was surprised at that too!
Today I created an account at TrustPilot and registered my own opinion. Might as well tell the truth every place and in every way we can.
Post by: Noedelhap on May 30, 2020, 16:22
That tells you everything you need to know.
Post by: marthamarks on May 30, 2020, 19:20
I'm feeling sad and sorry about this but will now start looking forward. No regrets.
Post by: PhotoBomb on May 30, 2020, 20:16
YF: The 30% royalty rate is standardized across your offerings for contributors. Will this change?
Jon: “The 30% rate is fair to the contributor and let’s us invest in marketing and the technology..(30%) is the right spot.”
https://firstadopter.tumblr.com/post/108210540999/interview-the-ceo-of-shutterstock-says-adobe-is
Post by: jjneff on May 30, 2020, 20:19
Post by: wollwerth on May 30, 2020, 21:36
Sold a video on Pond5 today for $95.00! There are places they sell fro much better returns!Same here, as opposed to the $4 commission from a video on SS today.
Post by: dragonblade on May 30, 2020, 22:09
Well, my images are now officially gone from SS. No traces of them remain on my Dashboard.
I'm feeling sad and sorry about this but will now start looking forward. No regrets.
A very bold move and something I'll probably be doing very soon. It can only be for the better. Definitely the start of a new journey in stock.
Post by: marthamarks on May 31, 2020, 02:05
Well, my images are now officially gone from SS. No traces of them remain on my Dashboard.
I'm feeling sad and sorry about this but will now start looking forward. No regrets.
A very bold move and something I'll probably be doing very soon. It can only be for the better. Definitely the start of a new journey in stock.
It is the start of a new journey… and all we can hope is that we're not heading pell-mell into a dead-end canyon.
Post by: mino216 on May 31, 2020, 02:42
To sum it up, smaller and medium contributors may lose around 25-35 % according to my calculations, the larger ones will be probably hit less (around 10-15 %). Maybe... it will be possible to earn even more but that can only happen if there is a small amount od 350 and 750-images subscriptions which I do not expect. I would be wiser next month when I will se the distribution of subscriptions among buyers.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 31, 2020, 03:13
Quote from Oringer in an interview 2015As I said before I think they are aiming at getting most full timers to land in the "30%" tier with the new structure. That way they still claim to pay contributors a fairer percentage than istock for example. Problem is that it is a complete lie. The new payments wont be anything like that percentage of the amount received by shutterstock (not the only problem with the new scheme).
YF: The 30% royalty rate is standardized across your offerings for contributors. Will this change?
Jon: “The 30% rate is fair to the contributor and let’s us invest in marketing and the technology..(30%) is the right spot.”
https://firstadopter.tumblr.com/post/108210540999/interview-the-ceo-of-shutterstock-says-adobe-is
Post by: CHDigitalMedia on May 31, 2020, 03:20
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Weeds growing through concrete ground shot background stock footage. It can still be purchased on Shutterstock without any royalties going to me.
Just a heads up
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 31, 2020, 03:36
https://www.digitalbristles.com/shutterstock-bombshell-royalty-cut-june-1st/ (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 :(
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 04:12
I am sure many of their friends are creatives and they have seen that in the pandemic they lost all income.
And now the company they work for cuts these peoples income with 6 days notice and kicks those who ask too many questions and complain too much of the platform. Even if they spent years building their ports and really depend on their stock income.
And the major owner, Jon Oringer, approves all of this.
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 04:32
During the Dollar Photo Crisis Shutterstock and other companies registered domains with the word boycott in them.
So having contributors deactivate files and moving elsewhere really scared them.
I suppose the new guy on SS is not familiar with how online communities work.
Maybe that is why he is so comfortable with deleting artist portfolios. He thinks these little individuals don‘t matter.
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/05/06/is-shutterstock-worried-about-a-boycott/#comments
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on May 31, 2020, 04:38
It all makes you wonder what the employees on SS think about all this.I'd forgotten about the mass-integrity purge of SS staff over the China censorship thing a while back until someone here mentioned it. I imagine a lot of the more empathetic (read less sociopathic) staff went then.
I am sure many of their friends are creatives and they have seen that in the pandemic they lost all income.
And now the company they work for cuts these peoples income with 6 days notice and kicks those who ask too many questions and complain too much of the platform. Even if they spent years building their ports and really depend on their stock income.
And the major owner, Jon Oringer, approves all of this.
Post by: Rage on May 31, 2020, 05:58
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/ (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 :(
This is a very very good history lesson on Shutterstock, thank you
Post by: Desintegrator on May 31, 2020, 05:59
It all makes you wonder what the employees on SS think about all this.
I am sure many of their friends are creatives and they have seen that in the pandemic they lost all income.
And now the company they work for cuts these peoples income with 6 days notice and kicks those who ask too many questions and complain too much of the platform. Even if they spent years building their ports and really depend on their stock income.
And the major owner, Jon Oringer, approves all of this.
Many of the employees must be uncomfortable that they have to implement these things. Obviously, far from all of them, but there must many.
We should keep voicing it at as many places as possible that they are actually destroying peoples lives.
How is the situation in New York now with lockdowns and such? Is there any possibility of a real life demonstration in front of their office? Is there a community of New York based contributors?
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 06:22
However most of the financially hardest hit contributors live overseas, in countries where there is no government support for lost income from their day jobs.
The situation is much, much worse than with Fotolia/DPC a few years ago.
Producers abruptly lost all their day job income due to corona.
Stock income might suddenly be the only income for families at the moment.
SS is totally refusing to communicate with contributors. No reaction from admins on their board whatsoever.
Instead they delete portfolios of those that complain to much or „ask too many questions“.
Shutterstock was always one of the most liberal and easy going companies.
Now they made a 180 and rule through corporate silence, intimdation and fear.
A lot of the contributors live in dictatorships. No free press, rulers always watching what you do online. They know what it is like to be threatened for speaking out. And they loved the freedom of US boards.
SS is really ticking all the wrong boxes. They are throwing rocket fuel at a fire and encouraging an online shitstorm that will dwarf anything we ever had in the industry.
These pissed of producer communities, who have no day job, no income...but a lot of time....they will not just direct their uploading efforts to other companies and ghost Shutterstock.
No, to regain their lost income, they must encourage their customers move quickly.
The faster the better. If stock is currently the only income their families live on...they really have nothing to lose.
That is the main difference to the drama around dpc. Contributors wanted the customers to stay on Fotolia. They never tried to make them leave and go elsewhere.
The only solution would be to immediatly cancel the changes, postpone it all until after corona and work together with the producer community to come up with a fair new royalty system. The reset every January is simply abusive.
Unfortunately the more I read about the new guy and how he prefers everyone to leave instead of offering a creative solution, I have little hope he even understands what is coming. He obviously wants to completly transform the corporate culture, not just inside SS but also wants „yes sir“ contributors that accept anything without responding.
And he believes the 2 million uploads a week will continue to happen automatically, because we are bots.
Post by: Snow on May 31, 2020, 07:48
Let's just say there are certain individuals out there that are capable of crippling a whole organisation should they wish to do so.
Of course if SS goes down we all go down but then buyers will definitely have to move don't they.
I think SS has forgotten the internet is a 2-way street so good luck with all those pissed off Russians!
Post by: dragonblade on May 31, 2020, 07:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HqhPgauTc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6HqhPgauTc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3D2vmWD88w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3D2vmWD88w)
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 07:59
Without them the DPC boykott would never have been successful, here in the west stock income is simply a hobby for too many people.
I switched video off today. Keeping photos for a while to collect data.
But I have stopped all uploads to SS until this is resolved in our favor.
If the upload number, currently 1.2 million, drops by half, then perhaps some of the shareholders or the general stock market will wake up and notice that the new CEO in the middle of a pandemic impelemented a brutal cut with 6 day notice and that this has lead the producer community to stop uploading and encourage customers to switch to agencies that support them in this crisis.
And also that he disappeared into nowhere and the only „communication“ was to delete contributors...
If the share price drops...even the billionaire management will start to lose money...
Most important would be to convince customers to work with companies that support producers in this crisis.
I think many will understand, most people in the media business are affected by the pandemic.
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 08:00
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=y6HqhPgauTc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3D2vmWD88w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3D2vmWD88w)
We have to be our own guardian angels.
There are so many of us...
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 08:11
It should always be a personal decision. If you simply need the money right now, don‘t do it. Feed the family, but you can focus your uploads aggressively elsewhere and bring more balance.
Post by: dragonblade on May 31, 2020, 08:21
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, don‘t 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.
Post by: Shelma1 on May 31, 2020, 08:23
#ResetPavlovsky #ResetOringer
Post by: marthamarks on May 31, 2020, 08:39
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.
Post by: Snow on May 31, 2020, 08:46
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
Post by: zsooofija on May 31, 2020, 09:21
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
Post by: cathyslife on May 31, 2020, 09:23
snip
Do they really expect people just to say "10 cents? cool. Thanks!" and accept it?
Many will.
Post by: cathyslife on May 31, 2020, 09:25
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 doesn’t sound like they are playing fairly. If I were you, I’d wait until I got my money.
Post by: Firn on May 31, 2020, 09:31
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.
Post by: Snow on May 31, 2020, 09:34
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.
Post by: Snow on May 31, 2020, 09:46
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 doesn’t sound like they are playing fairly. If I were you, I’d 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!
Post by: Desintegrator on May 31, 2020, 09:53
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
Post by: gbalex on May 31, 2020, 10:04
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.
Post by: obj owl on May 31, 2020, 10:14
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.
Post by: Snow on May 31, 2020, 10:36
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.
Post by: gbalex on May 31, 2020, 10:57
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: XXXYou 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.
Post by: Noedelhap on May 31, 2020, 12:01
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/ (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!
Post by: zsooofija on May 31, 2020, 12:54
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 $35 dollar threshold or below your payout setting and have disabled your images and/or video portfolio so in your case you should have nothing to worry about.
Thank you. I decided to take the risk. Let's hope for the best.
Post by: somethingpretentious on May 31, 2020, 13:32
If a subscriber uses half of the downloads allowed, the commission paid out to contributors from this subscriber will be half of the numbers posted by Shutterstock.I think you are misleading : the percentages are fixed (they are what SS says they are) BUT it is the price per file which varies whether the subscription is used in its entirety or not. That's the tricky point !
So in this case, if you are at tier 1 you will receive 7.5%, and if you are tier 6 you will receive 20%.
I don't think it is misleading at all. You will be receiving 7.5% in any meaningful way. What is misleading is saying we will receive 15%.
Otherwise what would 100% constitute? How can we be receiving 15% if for example SS is receiving 13X (roughly in the above example) what we receive? It makes no sense and is just smoke and mirrors.
That's why a core demand has to be that % must mean percentage of what has actually been paid for that license or everything else goes out of the window. We wont even have a foundation to negotiate from and packages can be manipulate to s**ew us on an ongoing basis.
That and the January reset has to go. For top tier contributor that will mean a more than 50% pay cut from December to January. Honestly that can only have been though up by millionaires who have no idea how we peons survive in the real world.
I really believe this is important to understand: The real commission percentages are not fixed even though most contributors talk about them as if they were. Here is an example to illustrate this point:
A client buys a subscription for 199$ 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 don’t see how this can be up for debate.
Post by: everest on May 31, 2020, 13:37
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
Post by: Rage on May 31, 2020, 13:59
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 mirageIf 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.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 !
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 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 don’t see how this can be up for debate.
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
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 14:14
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100219-how-many-ceos-does-it-take/
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 15:19
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 it’s heading straight to Unlimited free downloads, SS is doing it’s 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 you’ll 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 you’re 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 don’t work for SS (I wish I did, honestly).
I don’t know anyone that works for SS.
I am a contributor just like you, Not a top contributor but not a small one.
“
😄
Post by: gbalex on May 31, 2020, 15:25
Now might be a lovely time to re-read their blog post about their sumptuous new headquarters in the Empire State building
(https://officesnapshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/RECEPTION-2-Photo-Credit-Bilyana-Dimitrova-700x467.jpg) (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/look-inside-shutterstocks-new-hq-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 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2013-financial-results/msg366316/#msg366316)
Post by: gbalex on May 31, 2020, 15:39
I can remember receiving similar responses when new contributors jumped ship in mass from IS. Long term contributors were complaining about algorithm changes that gave preference to new contributors. SS understands this dynamic and takes full advantage of new contributor ego's!
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 it’s heading straight to Unlimited free downloads, SS is doing it’s 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 you’ll 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 you’re 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 don’t work for SS (I wish I did, honestly).
I don’t know anyone that works for SS.
I am a contributor just like you, Not a top contributor but not a small one.
“
😄
Post by: marthamarks on May 31, 2020, 16:04
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.
^^ This! ^^
Post by: famfara on May 31, 2020, 16:37
Shuttersock will probably decline without new quality content being added regularly.
Post by: angelawaye on May 31, 2020, 16:57
Just be careful, even though you have taken your media off @shutterstock it is still searchable on @Google and the item can still be added to the SS cart. But you will not see the sale, SS take the sale you get nothing. This applies if you didn't opt out of licensing first so it may not apply to everyone. I terminated my account over two months ago when they showcased the new low video sub plan. This is my work on found on Google
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Weeds growing through concrete ground shot background stock footage. It can still be purchased on Shutterstock without any royalties going to me.
Just a heads up
You are right! This is insane. So even if I disable my port, SS can still collect money on my work via google ...
Post by: cobalt on May 31, 2020, 17:34
Just be careful, even though you have taken your media off @shutterstock it is still searchable on @Google and the item can still be added to the SS cart. But you will not see the sale, SS take the sale you get nothing. This applies if you didn't opt out of licensing first so it may not apply to everyone. I terminated my account over two months ago when they showcased the new low video sub plan. This is my work on found on Google
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Weeds growing through concrete ground shot background stock footage. It can still be purchased on Shutterstock without any royalties going to me.
Just a heads up
You are right! This is insane. So even if I disable my port, SS can still collect money on my work via google ...
How can this be legal??
That is something that deserves it‘s own investigation.
Post by: Elijah on May 31, 2020, 17:55
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/ (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 :(
Your blog is great but the font is so bleak that readability is very bad. I personally couldn't read till the end for this reason, its just hard to read.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on May 31, 2020, 19:36
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/ (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 :(
Your blog is great but the font is so bleak that readability is very bad. I personally couldn't read till the end for this reason, its just hard to read.
Sorry about that. I did a quick and dirty edit to make the text a much darker color, but I'll take a look at fixing that for the CSS when I get a few minutes to figure out what I did when I set that site up. Can't remember how anything was organized!
Post by: Elijah on May 31, 2020, 20:44
Quote
Sorry about that. I did a quick and dirty edit to make the text a much darker color, but I'll take a look at fixing that for the CSS when I get a few minutes to figure out what I did when I set that site up. Can't remember how anything was organized!
You don't need to fiddle with CSS usually to achieve this, those settings should be available in your WordPress theme options.
I create websites on a daily basis, so if you need a bit of help, PM me.
Cheers!
Post by: Desintegrator on May 31, 2020, 21:34
Post by: gnirtS on May 31, 2020, 23:36
Look fake people with no portfolio are popping up on the SS forum telling us all we are worthless scum.
Not a surprise, when this kicked off it was fairly clear they either paid for or told their offshore support centre to post positive play store app reviews to override the low scores.
Loads of people, all with geographically indian type names, none of which have reviewed anything else all started saying how amazing SS was to contribute to within a few hours.
Given anyone can submit to the forum - you just need an email address to register, dont need an SS buyer or contributor account, its not really a surprise.
Post by: CrFx on June 01, 2020, 01:32
There must be a plan for expansion. Yes, you do get lower price, but I think you will also get higher one in enhanced and single other.
All you need to achieve the higher level.
I think we'll need to wait and watch it. I am not removing any portfolio right now.
Post by: zsooofija on June 01, 2020, 02:23
This though looks depressing, but I am sure this was no blind decision.
There must be a plan for expansion. Yes, you do get lower price, but I think you will also get higher one in enhanced and single other.
All you need to achieve the higher level.
I think we'll need to wait and watch it. I am not removing any portfolio right now.
Yes, there is an expansion... of the managers' pockets. Just make a buyer account and see the prices for yourself. You will get 15% of that price, or maybe a bit more if you work you ass off. The plan is there, it's not a secret.
Post by: CrFx on June 01, 2020, 03:11
This though looks depressing, but I am sure this was no blind decision.
There must be a plan for expansion. Yes, you do get lower price, but I think you will also get higher one in enhanced and single other.
All you need to achieve the higher level.
I think we'll need to wait and watch it. I am not removing any portfolio right now.
Yes, there is an expansion... of the managers' pockets. Just make a buyer account and see the prices for yourself. You will get 15% of that price, or maybe a bit more if you work you ass off. The plan is there, it's not a secret.
I'll rather say live at SS and respect your decision in it.
Let's be gentle with each other views.
Post by: dragonblade on June 01, 2020, 03:58
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 04:05
Secondly, it'd be foolhardy to unroll something as hugely different to all of their systems at a time when all the staff are in bed.
I suspect they'll do this on a weekday when everybody is at work to fix the problems that inevitably come up.
Payments for example are ALWAYS initiated manually on the first working day Eastern time after the deadline.
Post by: zstoimenov on June 01, 2020, 04:05
Post by: Snow on June 01, 2020, 04:19
Starting today I would be at level 1 (15%) for videos so I already disabled that portfolio.
I am however currently at level 4 (30%) with images so keeping it online until January 2021.
I've already had more then a few $0,38 subs today but isn't that what it supposed to be? Even if they change subscription plans our cut at level 4 is still $0,38 per sub no?
What am I missing here?
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 04:23
Even if they change subscription plans our cut at level 4 is still $0,38 per sub no?
What am I missing here?
The 350 and 700 image sub packs the level 4 cut works out a lot nearer 10 cents than 0.38. SS have merely said it "wont be less than 10 cents" for new sub rates.
Post by: Snow on June 01, 2020, 04:32
Even if they change subscription plans our cut at level 4 is still $0,38 per sub no?
What am I missing here?
The 350 and 700 image sub packs the level 4 cut works out a lot nearer 10 cents than 0.38. SS have merely said it "wont be less than 10 cents" for new sub rates.
Oh? if that should be the case then my Image portfolio is gone too.
With all these changes lately I didn't seem to pay enough attention this time and figured it was only the levels that mattered so being at level 4 (30%) got you the same rate at $0,38 per sub.
My apologies for misunderstanding guys, I'm a bit slow these days :-[
Post by: Snow on June 01, 2020, 04:46
Maybe SS changed their mind :o but if people continue this then we will surely get them.
I'm going to lay back for a while, wait for SS next move and then take action. What I will not do is complain about getting the same rates :)
Again we're behaving like cattle getting in line ready to be milked. I'm signing off for now, take care peeps!
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 04:48
Post by: Firn on June 01, 2020, 05:49
btw I see many contributors talking (almost complaining) about how they still get the same rates. It's as if they are begging for lower rates, very odd!
Maybe SS changed their mind :o but if people continue this then we will surely get them.
I'm going to lay back for a while, wait for SS next move and then take action. What I will not do is complain about getting the same rates :)
Again we're behaving like cattle getting in line ready to be milked. I'm signing off for now, take care peeps!
I don't see anyone complaining, just people being surprised or confused.
It's understandable that many people want to see their earnings with the new rates, becaue untill now, we can only speculate how much the change will affect our earnings. With all the different packages Shutterstock offers and also the aspect of different prices for packages in different countries (which no mod has addressed so far) and the fact that Shutterstock gave us absolutely no info about which packages make up what percentage of sales, we are kept pretty much in the dark. That's why many people want to see the lower rates. To finally understand what they can really expect. No one is asking or even begging for the new rates. We don't want them, but since we know they are coming, we want to finally understand them and their impact on our earnings.
And there is really absolutely no way Shutterstock changed their mind and just keeps it a secret, when the whole microstock world is turning into an angry mob against them and people are disabling their portfolios. If they, for whatever reason, changed their mind, they would have announced it the moment the decision was made. They are probably all just still sleeping at this time and the change was not set to be implemented automatically.
Post by: Snow on June 01, 2020, 05:55
btw I see many contributors talking (almost complaining) about how they still get the same rates. It's as if they are begging for lower rates, very odd!
Maybe SS changed their mind :o but if people continue this then we will surely get them.
I'm going to lay back for a while, wait for SS next move and then take action. What I will not do is complain about getting the same rates :)
Again we're behaving like cattle getting in line ready to be milked. I'm signing off for now, take care peeps!
I don't see anyone complaining, just people being surprised or confused.
It's understandable that many people want to see their earnings with the new rates, becaue untill now, we can only speculate how much the change will affect our earnings. With all the different packages Shutterstock offers and also the aspect of different prices for packages in different countries (which no mod has addressed so far) and the fact that Shutterstock gave us absolutely no info about which packages make up what percentage of sales, we are kept pretty much in the dark. That's why many people want to see the lower rates. To finally understand what they can really expect. No one is asking or even begging for the new rates. We don't want them, but since we know they are coming, we want to finally understand them and their impact on our earnings.
And there is really absolutely no way Shutterstock changed their mind and just keeps it a secret, when the whole microstock world is turning into an angry mob against them and people are disabling their portfolios. If they, for whatever reason, changed their mind, they would have announced it the moment the decision was made. They are probably all just still sleeping at this time and the change was not set to be implemented automatically.
Alright good points Firn, thanks for clearing that up.
Post by: Noedelhap on June 01, 2020, 06:25
To be honest I would not like to be in their shoes.
Let's just say there are certain individuals out there that are capable of crippling a whole organisation should they wish to do so.
Of course if SS goes down we all go down but then buyers will definitely have to move don't they.
I think SS has forgotten the internet is a 2-way street so good luck with all those pissed off Russians!
Speaking of which, is there anyone here who has access to a Russian microstock forum and knows how to make contact with the Russian contributor base? If we can overcome the language barrier we might be able to unite our actions.
Post by: Dimco on June 01, 2020, 06:47
i tried to open a subject but i cannot, i’m not authorized to do so
edited:
Sorry my previous info was not correct, there is live discussion going on about the new royalty scheme in the forum.
Best
Post by: aprott on June 01, 2020, 06:49
Upload on SS is stopped.
Lets see how it works out over time.
Post by: PicturSque on June 01, 2020, 07:00
Even if they change subscription plans our cut at level 4 is still $0,38 per sub no?
What am I missing here?
The 350 and 700 image sub packs the level 4 cut works out a lot nearer 10 cents than 0.38. SS have merely said it "wont be less than 10 cents" for new sub rates.
SS drop this bombshell then lack the grace or even professionalism to have prepared some stats so we (especially those of us who make a living from this) aren't left mulling over whether we will be able to pay our bills. Even worse, dropping the bombshell 'not less then 10 cents' . This is unforgivable
Post by: LouisPhotos on June 01, 2020, 07:30
Post by: Snow on June 01, 2020, 07:47
To be honest I would not like to be in their shoes.
Let's just say there are certain individuals out there that are capable of crippling a whole organisation should they wish to do so.
Of course if SS goes down we all go down but then buyers will definitely have to move don't they.
I think SS has forgotten the internet is a 2-way street so good luck with all those pissed off Russians!
Speaking of which, is there anyone here who has access to a Russian microstock forum and knows how to make contact with the Russian contributor base? If we can overcome the language barrier we might be able to unite our actions.
http://www.microstock.ru/forum/ (http://www.microstock.ru/forum/) ? but maybe that's outdated
Google translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microstock.ru (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microstock.ru) and check Forum
Post by: alexdarm on June 01, 2020, 08:03
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me :)
Post by: marthamarks on June 01, 2020, 08:03
And there is really absolutely no way Shutterstock changed their mind and just keeps it a secret, when the whole microstock world is turning into an angry mob against them and people are disabling their portfolios. If they, for whatever reason, changed their mind, they would have announced it the moment the decision was made. They are probably all just still sleeping at this time and the change was not set to be implemented automatically.
Exactly right.
Just because we contributors are on pins and needles, that doesn't mean that the slug-a-beds at SS are also on pins and needles. They will get around to depressing our earnings soon enough. In their own sweet time.
Post by: Bauman on June 01, 2020, 08:45
dreamstime will save microstock industry ;)
Are you sure ? Got two DT sub sales in June ... 0,35 $ same earnings of May ... Where is my extra 10% increase in the royalties value for all downloads ?
Subscription is excluded ?
Post by: cobalt on June 01, 2020, 08:52
Completly ignoring all questions and a 100 page thread.
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 08:53
Even if they change subscription plans our cut at level 4 is still $0,38 per sub no?
What am I missing here?
The 350 and 700 image sub packs the level 4 cut works out a lot nearer 10 cents than 0.38. SS have merely said it "wont be less than 10 cents" for new sub rates.
This is the issue, they knew how bad it was, knew how much people would hate it but lacked the basic professionalism to even tell people what'd they'd get paid in 5 days time.
They clearly knew, but refused to say.
I did mention this. But got banned ;)
SS drop this bombshell then lack the grace or even professionalism to have prepared some stats so we (especially those of us who make a living from this) aren't left mulling over whether we will be able to pay our bills. Even worse, dropping the bombshell 'not less then 10 cents' . This is unforgivable
Post by: wollwerth on June 01, 2020, 09:10
Post by: tpack on June 01, 2020, 09:14
Post by: Noedelhap on June 01, 2020, 09:16
I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me :)
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
Post by: cobalt on June 01, 2020, 10:03
Nearly 200 000members and currently 1300 people online.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microstock.ru (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microstock.ru)
By he way here is a commercial notice that SS is paying out their dividend in a few days.
They are unaffected by the pandemic if the dividend is safe. They are lucky.
Perhaps if enough contributors were also shareholders, they would then at least talk to the producer community?
How many shares/people would it need to to get a voting minimum?
The stock price hss dropped a lot.
https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/retail/nyse-sstk/shutterstock/news/shutterstock-inc-nysesstk-is-about-to-go-ex-dividend-and-it-pays-a-1-8-yield/ (https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/retail/nyse-sstk/shutterstock/news/shutterstock-inc-nysesstk-is-about-to-go-ex-dividend-and-it-pays-a-1-8-yield/)
I love the app simply wall street by the way, very helpful.
The app considers he sstk share to be very overvalued, they estimate the correct price to be around 10 dollas, not 37 dollars.
Just an app of course.But it is rare to see a result like this.
Maybe another reason they must bring up earnings quickly.
https://simplywall.st/stocks/de/retail/bst-s3t/shutterstock-shares (https://simplywall.st/stocks/de/retail/bst-s3t/shutterstock-shares)
Post by: alexdarm on June 01, 2020, 10:37
I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me :)
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
I skimmed the forum a bit. Seems like most of them are just confused and are waiting for the new numbers to drop. The problem is, many contributors simply can't afford to switch off their accounts. They complain, yes, but I wouldn't expect much action from them.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 01, 2020, 10:44
The Russian contributor community has always been at the forefront of any action in my experience. I can't imagine our Russian brothers and sisters are going to let themselves be walked over this time either.I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me :)
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
I skimmed the forum a bit. Seems like most of them are just confused and are waiting for the new numbers to drop. The problem is, many contributors simply can't afford to switch off their accounts. They complain, yes, but I wouldn't expect much action from them.
Post by: Desintegrator on June 01, 2020, 10:59
The Russian contributor community has always been at the forefront of any action in my experience. I can't imagine our Russian brothers and sisters are going to let themselves be walked over this time either.I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me :)
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
I skimmed the forum a bit. Seems like most of them are just confused and are waiting for the new numbers to drop. The problem is, many contributors simply can't afford to switch off their accounts. They complain, yes, but I wouldn't expect much action from them.
Yes, I think the Fotolia D-Day thing really took off when the Russian community joined. Or was it even starting from them? I don't exactly know, but they had an important part in the movement. Pages about the protest were also available in Russian, etc...
Post by: cobalt on June 01, 2020, 11:05
In the end it is the only insurance artists have, diversify more to be less dependent.
If SS comes bakck with a better offer or postpones it all, it will be different.
Agencies would love to sell our content as cheap as possible, because THEY make it up un volume, we don‘t.
But if the individual sales value drops - 10 cents, 2 cents...the upload volume goes down quite drastically.
Those who do it as a side incime will jus shift their attention elsewhere. Many contributors only upload to one agency.
The pros can simply not supply a site that doesn‘t give reliable income. Also they might not want to devalue their product.
Others will split their files - the best content and series to agencies that pay more, or to exclusive places. The outtakes and test shots go to the low value places.
istock is missing a lot of excellent content, especially in video, because top level producers avoid them.
Adobe and pond5 already have made an agreement to share he video content. So they are building something stronger together.
Shutterstock will not disappear, but it will be a very different place.
Adobe will become stronger with their help.
Post by: Noedelhap on June 01, 2020, 11:11
I am a Russian contributor.
Though I'm not really active in russain speaking contributors community, i can help deliver the message or translate something.
Feel free to PM me if you need me :)
What I'd like to know is what this news means to the Russian contributors and whether they are planning to switch off their portfolios today in a coordinated action, or do they silently accept the royalty changes? If the Russian Shutterstock community is as big as some say, together they could do a lot of damage to Shutterstock.
I skimmed the forum a bit. Seems like most of them are just confused and are waiting for the new numbers to drop. The problem is, many contributors simply can't afford to switch off their accounts. They complain, yes, but I wouldn't expect much action from them.
Thanks. Understandable, but I still hope that there will be some form of protest, one way or another. If they collectively stop uploading that would mean a lot already.
Post by: Rage on June 01, 2020, 11:51
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: wollwerth on June 01, 2020, 11:55
From now, on my social media channels, I will be referring to SS as “the Pavlovsky agency aka Shutterstock” I hope others will join me.Would that make Jon Oringer "Pavlovsky's dog?"
Post by: Firn on June 01, 2020, 12:07
::)
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 12:10
Aren't these new 0.10$ sales that keep popping in just...cute? So fuzzy and sweet and tiny.... And that they are also SODs instead of just SUBs, where we expected the 0.10$ sales, makes all of this so unexpected and exciting!
::)
Thats interesting in a way.
We were told the SODs for sub value were things like FB adverts and so on NOT subscriptions.
So it seems we get 10 cents for those as well NOT just subscriptions.
Post by: Firn on June 01, 2020, 12:12
Thats interesting in a way.
We were told the SODs for sub value were things like FB adverts and so on NOT subscriptions.
So it seems we get 10 cents for those as well NOT just subscriptions.
The 0.10$ SODs might possibly be a mistake and supposed to be SUBs. At least I just had a customer download two images who frequently buys from me (always same city and same topic of images, so I know it's the same) and the images used to be SUBs previously and are now listed under SODs.
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 12:14
Post by: kmlPhoto on June 01, 2020, 12:27
Post by: thx9000 on June 01, 2020, 12:29
Looks that way - they cant even get the robbing contributors bit correct. Everything is appearing as an SOD.Greed and incompetence. That's a potent mix. If you aim to drive a business into the ground that is.
Post by: cathyslife on June 01, 2020, 12:38
Looks that way - they cant even get the robbing contributors bit correct. Everything is appearing as an SOD.Greed and incompetence. That's a potent mix. If you aim to drive a business into the ground that is.
Thing is, THEY are laughing all the way to the bank. It’s only being driven into the ground for contributors. The noobs who are ok with $.10 an image are all lined up, ready to go. Tens of thousands of them.
Post by: Desintegrator on June 01, 2020, 12:42
Post by: eyeidea on June 01, 2020, 12:44
I've been doing stock for 14 years. At one time I was the #1 video contributor at iStock. My videos have earned millions for the agencies I submit to. I've been with ShutterStock for about 10 years. Today I have thousands of top performing videos at several agencies.
Who I am not:
A desperate artist that will accept a pittance in royalties from any agency.
Today I opted out of image and video sales at ShutterStock.
Post by: Ferradal.FCG on June 01, 2020, 13:11
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 13:15
Wonder why that is.....
Post by: obj owl on June 01, 2020, 13:25
Thats interesting in a way.
We were told the SODs for sub value were things like FB adverts and so on NOT subscriptions.
So it seems we get 10 cents for those as well NOT just subscriptions.
The 0.10$ SODs might possibly be a mistake and supposed to be SUBs. At least I just had a customer download two images who frequently buys from me (always same city and same topic of images, so I know it's the same) and the images used to be SUBs previously and are now listed under SODs.
Tiny SODs and subs are the same except for internal accounting, in that subs are bought directly through the website and tiny SODs are subs sold via the Enterprise Team like the facebook deal. The reason why the SODs are 10c is that the real price falls below 10c so the 10c floor kicks in. They are selling your images for next to nothing.
10c is what you can expect when they start discounting subs, expect a lot in January.
Post by: jjneff on June 01, 2020, 13:38
Post by: thx9000 on June 01, 2020, 13:46
Looks that way - they cant even get the robbing contributors bit correct. Everything is appearing as an SOD.Greed and incompetence. That's a potent mix. If you aim to drive a business into the ground that is.
Thing is, THEY are laughing all the way to the bank. It’s only being driven into the ground for contributors. The noobs who are ok with $.10 an image are all lined up, ready to go. Tens of thousands of them.
Short term maybe. Long term they'll eventually share the fate of iStock. I don't know what kind of spin they put to this in their corporate meetings to convince themselves it is sustainable but there is no way they'll be able to keep old and attract new contributors producing relevant and quality content. After that it'll be a vicious circle ...down the drain. It's not the first nor the last time a leading company shoots itself in the foot
Post by: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 13:57
The hordes of very unhappy customers, the fact anyone can steal their content for free and so on.
To be this looks like a cost cutting measure to help a company with some fairly serious issues.
Post by: Snow on June 01, 2020, 14:18
You can bet there are some top contributors who's earnings will get halved but will still bend over and take the abuse. Good luck to them!
I was thinking about deleting every image that has been sold for cheap but that takes too much time and effort, something we don't have to spend on SS anymore.
I will only lose a few hundred compared to others since my earnings already took a huge nosedive a few years back and kept going down.
Let's keep it simple at first, moving to Adobe or P5. For those that do not want to delete or disable their portfolio just yet at least refrain from uploading new content to SS. Don't feed the greed!
Try a niche or some illustrative editorials which is something not easy to replicate. Up it a notch, less quantity more quality. Try to create work that is not already on Shutterstock. They are probably counting on some of their contributors to duplicate our work but they will always be one step behind or lack the time and talent.
If we notice Adobe doesn't care either then we can look into Symbiostock (images, vectors, videos) or even Pixels.com (images) and create our own platform.
https://www.symbiostock.org (https://www.symbiostock.org)
https://licensing.pixels.com/aboutpixelslicensing.html (https://licensing.pixels.com/aboutpixelslicensing.html)
There are still too many contributors with amazing talent and portfolio's. Do not give in now and let that talent/portfolio go to waste!
Also don't give them a reason to deactivate your account without payment, be as smart and tactical as they are!
Where is everyone anyway. If we know about this forum then 90% of the contributors should know about this forum no? speak up people, join in, we know you're there!
Post by: cobalt on June 01, 2020, 14:22
Looking over all the info between the total silence from management, the aggressive deleting of contributor accounts just for complaining in public, the lousy ratings by customers on Trustpilots and even apps that analyse publicly traded company info that warn against SS...they seem to be in a world of problems.
They thought in the middle of a pandemic creatives are so desperate that they simply cannot afford to delete ports and that they MUST upload.
Post by: everest on June 01, 2020, 14:26
Who I am:
I've been doing stock for 14 years. At one time I was the #1 video contributor at iStock. My videos have earned millions for the agencies I submit to. I've been with ShutterStock for about 10 years. Today I have thousands of top performing videos at several agencies.
Who I am not:
A desperate artist that will accept a pittance in royalties from any agency.
Today I opted out of image and video sales at ShutterStock.
Post by: marthamarks on June 01, 2020, 14:50
Done.
Good work!
Post by: marthamarks on June 01, 2020, 14:51
Who I am:
I've been doing stock for 14 years. At one time I was the #1 video contributor at iStock. My videos have earned millions for the agencies I submit to. I've been with ShutterStock for about 10 years. Today I have thousands of top performing videos at several agencies.
Who I am not:
A desperate artist that will accept a pittance in royalties from any agency.
Today I opted out of image and video sales at ShutterStock.
Way to go!!!!!
Post by: marthamarks on June 01, 2020, 14:54
From now, on my social media channels, I will be referring to SS as “the Pavlovsky agency aka Shutterstock” I hope others will join me.
I suggest this brief edit, based on inspiration from our friend Trabuco:
“the Pavlovsky agency aka Shitterstock”
Post by: cobalt on June 01, 2020, 14:54
They could have also long ago adjusted their rate card to reflect real percentages of what customers paid. Maybe even with yearly levels, but without the stupid reset.
To do it all behind everyones back and hijack all content for nanostock, then abruptly with 6 days notice force everyone into it, at a time when day job earnings are gone....
This will end up as a textbook case how not to ruin a publicly traded company.
Post by: max headroom on June 01, 2020, 14:57
Post by: marthamarks on June 01, 2020, 14:59
I've just disabled my 16000 elements portfolio after the first 0.10 cent sale.....
Congratulations and thanks for taking a principled stand for yourself and for everybody else being hit right now.
Thank you!
Post by: Thomas from France on June 01, 2020, 15:07
Who I am:
I've been doing stock for 14 years. At one time I was the #1 video contributor at iStock. My videos have earned millions for the agencies I submit to. I've been with ShutterStock for about 10 years. Today I have thousands of top performing videos at several agencies.
Who I am not:
A desperate artist that will accept a pittance in royalties from any agency.
Today I opted out of image and video sales at ShutterStock.
Great move, are you ready to spread it on twitter #BoycottShutterstock @Shutterstock ?
Post by: H2O on June 01, 2020, 15:08
Just sold my first 10 cent image. I will most likely delete my videos in a month. I will wait several months on images, but I suspect this will be my last year with SS. Not angry, don't expect them to change their business model. Now that it doesn't work for me, I will simply move on to something different and more lucrative. Not the first time I had to pivot because a company changed direction, wont be the last.
This is true, as Shutterstock are about to find out their revenue's will be going down over the next couple of years as the talent moves out.
I think the first to go down hill will be the video side of the site, this takes a lot of time, image editing and the right equipment to produce this content.
Post by: Minsc on June 01, 2020, 15:34
Tomorrow is going to be brutal since the system will be place for the full day. Even Level 6 contributors are seeing their revenue drop by at least 50% in some cases.
Post by: tpack on June 01, 2020, 15:42
From now, on my social media channels, I will be referring to SS as “the Pavlovsky agency aka Shutterstock” I hope others will join me.
I suggest this brief edit, based on inspiration from our friend Trabuco:
“the Pavlovsky agency aka Shitterstock”
Shitterstock it is
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 01, 2020, 15:49
...For those that do not want to delete or disable their portfolio just yet at least refrain from uploading new content to SS. Don't feed the greed! . . .
I like Don't feed the greed! I liked enough to borrow it for a hashtag for tweets
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1267548751175901184
Can't use the apostrophe in a hashtag, so the grammar police won't be happy, but I can live with that :)
I've disabled my portfolio, but for those who can't #BoycottShutterstock, we can advocate that they #DontFeedTheGreed
Post by: gbalex on June 01, 2020, 17:33
Looks that way - they cant even get the robbing contributors bit correct. Everything is appearing as an SOD.Greed and incompetence. That's a potent mix. If you aim to drive a business into the ground that is.
Thing is, THEY are laughing all the way to the bank. It’s only being driven into the ground for contributors. The noobs who are ok with $.10 an image are all lined up, ready to go. Tens of thousands of them.
Short term maybe. Long term they'll eventually share the fate of iStock. I don't know what kind of spin they put to this in their corporate meetings to convince themselves it is sustainable but there is no way they'll be able to keep old and attract new contributors producing relevant and quality content. After that it'll be a vicious circle ...down the drain. It's not the first nor the last time a leading company shoots itself in the foot
I don't think they ever thought it would be sustainable. They made a mint going public and the goal has always been, to fill their pockets, at our expense.
The business plan has been built around devaluing our assets to gain market share and that has not changed. The focus is on attracting more contributors, using key contributors to attract more contributors and offering the lowest pricing model to attract buyers.
They fully understand this is not sustainable, at which point they do just what they have done. When profits & market share drop, prop stock prices up by robbing the contributor piggy bank.
I don't care enough any more, to check what key players have been doing with their stock and stock options. I am out and have been out for a while. Will never be back. I don't do business with morally bankrupt crooks.
Post by: zstoimenov on June 01, 2020, 20:12
Whenever you go in with a win-lose mentality, you are the one losing in the long run. Good luck, Shutterstock! ;)
Post by: Tenebroso on June 01, 2020, 20:20
Post by: LifeofRileyDesign on June 01, 2020, 20:55
Post by: Medstockphotos on June 01, 2020, 21:19
Post by: Snow on June 02, 2020, 02:36
...For those that do not want to delete or disable their portfolio just yet at least refrain from uploading new content to SS. Don't feed the greed! . . .
I like Don't feed the greed! I liked enough to borrow it for a hashtag for tweets
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1267548751175901184
Can't use the apostrophe in a hashtag, so the grammar police won't be happy, but I can live with that :)
I've disabled my portfolio, but for those who can't #BoycottShutterstock, we can advocate that they #DontFeedTheGreed
Nothing but respect for you Jo Ann!
You are a strong woman that won’t hold back for anything nor anyone and I am very proud to have you amongst us!
Ill blow you a kiss :-*
Post by: Firn on June 02, 2020, 02:57
At least after the first day I can say that it does not look like this. I am getting almost 0.10$ sales only and the highest I got was 0.14$ and that was a SOD (And apparently, at least to admin statement in the SS forum, the problem where SUBs ended up in the Single & Other Category was fixed, so apparently I am really getting 0.10$ SODs), so my earnings are down by over 70%.
And with this came a sad realization: It does not matter what we do. Even if 50% of all Shutterstock contributors leave Shutterstock (Which is a high number and won't happen), Shutterstock will still make more profit with this change than they made before, because a 70% profit loss on my side means a 70% profit gain on their site. They calculated the change so drastically, that they can basially afford to lose half of their contributor base and probably even a good portion of their customers and will still come out of this with a higher profit than before. They only need 30% of the number of sales they had before to maintaine their former profit.
Post by: gnirtS on June 02, 2020, 03:07
SS aren't stupid. They'd have planned this, modelled this, worked out how many will go and worked out its still fine. Cynical but they know exactly what they're doing.
Its not going to finish the company.
They'll lose a certain percentage. They're ready for that.
A bigger number might stop uploading new stuff. No problem. They have loads of stuff.
Most will get angry, shout and just eventually accept it. This is the majority.
SS are many things but not stupid. They know the impact, knew people wont be happy but have calculated, and based on other companies that long term it'll benefit them.
Post by: dragonblade on June 02, 2020, 03:13
Post by: Desintegrator on June 02, 2020, 03:14
I was 100% convinced that my earnings would go down after the change, but I still had a bit of hope that, while most of my sales would be for much less than what they were before, there would also be a few sales that were more than what I used to get, so I hoped part of the loss would be evened out by that and maybe I would make a 25-30% loss comapred to what I earned before. That was, apparently, way too optimistic
At least after the first day I can say that it does not look like this. I am getting almost 0.10$ sales only and the highest I got was 0.14$ and that was a SOD (And apparently, at least to admin statement in the SS forum, the problem where SUBs ended up in the Single & Other Category was fixed, so apparently I am really getting 0.10$ SODs), so my earnings are down by over 70%.
And with that came a sad realization: It does not matter what we do. Even if 50% of all Shutterstock contributors leave Shutterstock (Which is a high number and won't happen), Shutterstock will still make more profit with this change than they made before, because a 70% profit loss on my side means a 70% profit gain on their site. They calculated the change so drastically, that they can basially afford to lose half of their contributor base and probably even a good portion of their customers and will still come out of this with a higher profit than before.
I'm feeling your pain, i'd just like to point out, it's nowhere near 70% gain for them. They were already keeping around 70% of what buyers pay, now they keep around 85%
Post by: aitor on June 02, 2020, 03:34
0,10 now
I think 70% loss it's well calculated.
Post by: trabuco on June 02, 2020, 03:53
Shitterstock.com
Post by: qunamax on June 02, 2020, 04:02
They wanted that for some time now, first they let anyone with mobile phone in - carefully waiting for mobile phone camera tech to mature to decent image quality level, then they advertise for contributors in developing countries and now when they have enough newbie contributors they roll out the system.
We might be mad, but newbies will be swarming facebook groups announcing they just made their first 0.10$ sale or payout and congratulate each other on it, while SS is laughing their *ss off.
SS are betting that from quantity there will be just enough quality not to look like complete trash collection in the eyes of buyers and competition.
It's a system very well known in any third world or developing country in every single company (especially the foreign western companies that come to exploit minimum wage workforce), you don't need to know your job, you'll learn something (or not, doesn't matter as long as you do what your boss tells you), but you must work for minimum wage or we will replace you in an instant. The quality of product is not that important too.
This might come as shock to westerners, but for us from developing countries it's everyday reality, I expected this exact thing from SS and I'm sure all other microstock companies will follow eventually.
Post by: tihov on June 02, 2020, 07:00
Post by: max headroom on June 02, 2020, 09:03
Post by: GrayMouse on June 02, 2020, 09:08
Post by: NeonRobot on June 02, 2020, 09:11
Post by: miketravels on June 02, 2020, 09:26
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Post by: Sebastian Radu on June 02, 2020, 09:38
I did and will continue to do food photography.
In Romania, food prices are at least the same as in Western Europe. Sometimes bigger sometimes smaller. In the case of cameras, the prices are exactly the same (sometimes even higher).
With the new "improved" formula of our Shuttesrtok income, I will not accept to sell my humble pictures for 10 cents. The other day I deactivated my video portfolio (around 500 files), and today, after the first pictures sold for 10 cents, I did the same for the pictures (5690 files).
I want to mention that I am at level 4 (I still had a little and I was over 10k dollars earned)
I find it incredible what those from the "biggest" company in this field could do.
We can all see the lack of respect, unprofessionalism and hunger for money and profit.
I would be ashamed as CEO of such a company to fool thousands of people and practically steal them. It's really embarrassing! How eager can you become for money ?! Unbelievable!
But what I have learned over time is that all evil returns just as good returns. That's why I'm convinced that in the end the fact that I deactivated both portfolios from them is something that will ultimately bring me a higher income!
I hope you don't sell your work and everything you've invested over time for 10 cents!
All the best,
Sebastian
Post by: blue on June 02, 2020, 09:47
Post by: LouisPhotos on June 02, 2020, 09:57
Post by: microlock on June 02, 2020, 09:58
Post by: wollwerth on June 02, 2020, 09:58
Post by: Medstockphotos on June 02, 2020, 10:01
Exciting News! (For Us),
Since you idiots are content with accepting 10 cents per download, we have decided to implement our new, improved, simplified royalty structure. Starting 3 months ago you will now be paying us to sell your images and video. If you have any questions, too bad. We couldn't care less if you like it or not. If you choose to leave there are thousands of new artists who will take your place and happily pay for the privilege of seeing their work on somebody's blog.
For any and all sales we will be charging you a percentage based on price per asset. We can't tell you how much that percentage will be, but rest assured it will be fair (for us).
Bills for our services will be sent to your address on file each month. You can pay us by check, paypal, or money order. Have a nice day!
SS Team
Post by: beketoff on June 02, 2020, 10:04
P.S. To be on the safe side, I decided to deactivate my account for the time being, just not to be saddened to see 0.10$ sales propagating the sales report...
Post by: tpack on June 02, 2020, 10:11
0.10 here too.
Shitterstock.com
If you type Shitterstock.com in your browser it takes you directly to the Pavlovsky Agency. Domain registered in 2006
Post by: cobalt on June 02, 2020, 10:27
I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
Because the average is 40-70 cents, at least among the people I know and myself. Non exclusive and ignoring connect.
Post by: cathyslife on June 02, 2020, 10:38
0.10 here too.
Shitterstock.com
If you type Shitterstock.com in your browser it takes you directly to the Pavlovsky Agency. Domain registered in 2006
They must have changed it. I just typed it in, and it went to shutterstock.
Post by: cobalt on June 02, 2020, 10:44
Obviously they want a crowd of mobile phone newbies to grow their collection, uploading like crazy just to reach that next level all while never passing level 1 and maximizing SS profits. If you read between the lines in their announcement that's exactly what they are saying.
They wanted that for some time now, first they let anyone with mobile phone in - carefully waiting for mobile phone camera tech to mature to decent image quality level, then they advertise for contributors in developing countries and now when they have enough newbie contributors they roll out the system.
We might be mad, but newbies will be swarming facebook groups announcing they just made their first 0.10$ sale or payout and congratulate each other on it, while SS is laughing their *ss off.
SS are betting that from quantity there will be just enough quality not to look like complete trash collection in the eyes of buyers and competition.
It's a system very well known in any third world or developing country in every single company (especially the foreign western companies that come to exploit minimum wage workforce), you don't need to know your job, you'll learn something (or not, doesn't matter as long as you do what your boss tells you), but you must work for minimum wage or we will replace you in an instant. The quality of product is not that important too.
This might come as shock to westerners, but for us from developing countries it's everyday reality, I expected this exact thing from SS and I'm sure all other microstock companies will follow eventually.
There have been several attempts to run a stock agency mostly on the iphone shooter, eyeem being the last attempt.
The problem: this enthusiastic crowd has zero interest in creating the content customers need: high quality, very modern very fresh content of business teams, great lifestyle of families etc...
Just because people have a phone, it does not make them good photographers. Just look at any social media feed on any site. What people normally shoot is ugly and very low quality.
Eyeem tries to filter a few useful files out of millions and sends them to getty to round out the large getty library. So that customers who want images with „taken by amateur with iphone“ style is something they have available.
Just look at the flickr collection or the eyeem collection on getty, and you will quickly see, that while some of the images are interesting, the majority are useless for the serious buyer.
I interpreted what they said in the opposite way, that they want to get rid of all the small time uploaders and mostly work with teams and stock factories.
They could drastically downsize their editing team and probably streamline quite a few other things internally.
In the last 3 years they blew up the library drastically so that they can go round saying they have a library with over 300 million files.
Now they want to cut it all down to more professional content.
What they didn‘t think of is that even large stock houses have their pride and will not accept their work sold for 10 cents.
The pros have a lot of options and, just like anyone else, do not appreciate having their income cut in the middle of a pandemic with 6 days notice.
I wouldn‘t be surprised if it was exactly the top quality shooters they were hoping will stay who walk out first.
eta: the best selling content in eyeem does not come from „amateurs with a phone“. Many top sellers are normal photographers or professional stock shooters who just produce content „with social media vibe“ specifically for eyeem.
Whatever way you turn it: high quality fresh stock with great vibe and sales value always comes from very experienced people.
Post by: blue on June 02, 2020, 10:45
OK but we don't know yet SS new RPDI don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
Because the average is 40-70 cents, at least among the people I know and myself. Non exclusive and ignoring connect.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 02, 2020, 10:52
Very likely I'll be disabling my account. I think everyone needs to though or a huge # of contributors to have an impact.
I think it will make a difference if there are noticeable holes in the collection - the image spam can fill up 150 million easily but a lot of that is just not commercially viable. When Shutterstock's bread and butter corporate customers can't find the things that were in their lightbox - when big, noticeable contributors like eyeidea shut off their portfolios - buyers will realize Shutterstock is no longer the great one stop shop it once was.
We don't have to get the numbers down much to make a big difference. Even small potatoes contributors like me had content in the first page of searches
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266812478647709696
And for more niche subjects, when a buyer goes to find something, their choices have noticeably shrunk
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266843339673886720
Post by: epixx on June 02, 2020, 10:53
One custom job per year will bring in more money than my 3,500 image portfolio at SS. Easy choice.
To those who think that singles etc. will save the situation; I had a single today which brought in 11 cent.
Post by: whosvegas on June 02, 2020, 10:55
Makes 36 cent rpd
Beter then 25 cent :)
Post by: cobalt on June 02, 2020, 10:56
OK but we don't know yet SS new RPDI don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
Because the average is 40-70 cents, at least among the people I know and myself. Non exclusive and ignoring connect.
Trust people to make their own decisions. There are plenty of level 6 shooters who see no point in uploading and have closed their shop.
Plus...there is that abusive rate card with a built in yearly reset and the abrupt change of everything with 6 days notice.
Plus zero communication, the company has gone down in their bunker, closed the doors, disconnected the phones and has stopped communicating entirely. Except for every once in a while deleting accounts with no warning.
Does that sound like a brilliant business team with a plan??
Who cannot even check the email with a drastic announcement for te greatest change in 15 years?
Business leaders have to get people to trust them. It is the essence of all business, not money.
Look around the forums, do you see people trusting the new SS business instincts?
Post by: Jens G on June 02, 2020, 11:03
I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :oWhen IS lowered to 2 cent a couple of years ago, I deleted my best selling images there, and stopped uploading. Then in september last year, they paid a decent royalty by mistake for some sales, and when they took back the money, I finally terminated my account.
Post by: tpack on June 02, 2020, 11:05
0.10 here too.
Shitterstock.com
If you type Shitterstock.com in your browser it takes you directly to the Pavlovsky Agency. Domain registered in 2006
They must have changed it. I just typed it in, and it went to shutterstock.
The Pavlovsky Agency aka Shutterstock
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 02, 2020, 11:07
I wonder if the 0.10$ sales that everybody does lately irrespective of their level is just a mistake at SS end, after all it's a drastic change for their accounting and management systems too (not defending them!). I remember iStock did so many of such accounting mistakes in recent years, sometimes they even apologized and made refunds... :) Its should be more clear in a few days whether the same happened to SS, maybe there will be another "corrigendum" and "apologies" email from SS soon... Or perhaps I'm too naive? :)It's not a mistake. The large subscriptions all come out under 10c and get rounded up.
P.S. To be on the safe side, I decided to deactivate my account for the time being, just not to be saddened to see 0.10$ sales propagating the sales report...
Post by: cathyslife on June 02, 2020, 11:21
0.10 here too.
Shitterstock.com
If you type Shitterstock.com in your browser it takes you directly to the Pavlovsky Agency. Domain registered in 2006
They must have changed it. I just typed it in, and it went to shutterstock.
The Pavlovsky Agency aka Shutterstock
Ah. You were making a joke. Funny that they registered it back in 2006. But then a lot of times, companies register a lot of iterations of their name, figuring in typos. This one was a self-fulfilling prophecy! 😀
Post by: Firn on June 02, 2020, 11:27
I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
I can explain this to you, or at least try. For me, what I look at is the ratio of work I put into making the photos and submit them and what I earn from them that is important - "them" as in a collective of all my work in opposite to a single individual image. Since I pretty much upload the same images to multiple agencies, the work and time for the photos is a constant number. What is not is the earning I get from them.
So far I have submitted to IS and will continue doing so for a simple reason: They have been one of my top 3 best earners very similar to Shutterstock in income with a port of similar size and a similar number of downloads each month.
Since it's the same time and effort that goes into every agency, why should I say "I submit to SS for an earning of X$ each month but I am not doing it for the same amount to IS" Why? It's the same time and work that went into it and it's the same money I walk away with at the end of the month.
Imagine it a bit ike a housekeeper who gets a fixed salery each month. She is happy to do the work for the amount of money she gets, but some day she sees a list where every single task that is involved in her work is listed with an individual price and she says "What? Cleaning windows only gets me 0.50$? I am not doing this job anymore!". That would be silly if the overall payment per hour was good, right? That's a bit how I see it. Even though IS has this crazy 0.02$ sales, they somehow always manage to pull in enough medium sales to make up for it and the overall sum is right.
If Shutterstock had just changed around their earning system to something where some sales would make you less, but others more, but it was still divided in a way that the overall sum was not too different from what it was before, it might have worked out. The problem is that Shutterstock has never really been an agency that managed to pull in great licence for me and most of my earnings come from SUBs. With royalities for these reduced by over a third, there is no way Shutterstock will get even close to the former number at the end of the month.
Maybe it's too early to tell, maybe there is still hope, but the first 2 days of June give me a different impression. I only get 0,10$ - 0,14$ sales and if all of June will be like this I will end up with only a third of what I used to make on Shuttertock and what I still make on iStock with almost the same port. That's why I will stay on IS, but will deactivate my account on SS by the end of the month, should my earnings continue to be as low as they are now.
Post by: zsooofija on June 02, 2020, 11:31
I also stopped uploading to IS when they did that, but as far as I remember there was no possibility to delete just some images, you could delete all images, or none. How was it possible to delete just the best sellers? I'd like to do that too.I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :oWhen IS lowered to 2 cent a couple of years ago, I deleted my best selling images there, and stopped uploading. Then in september last year, they paid a decent royalty by mistake for some sales, and when they took back the money, I finally terminated my account.
Post by: MysteryShot on June 02, 2020, 11:56
I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
This is very true!, this is a two front battle, we can not only disable accounts on SS and still accept iS sales, we may win one battle but we will lose the War.
Post by: MysteryShot on June 02, 2020, 11:59
Post by: Astrantia on June 02, 2020, 12:01
I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
I had several hugh sales with IS nearly 100 € per sale - that makes up for the low sales in IS.
But I never ever had just one big sale with SS - it´s always just those cheap subscription sales on SS.
I also had my "share" of 10 cent sales and disabled both vids and pics now.
Post by: blue on June 02, 2020, 12:02
This is what I was implying. I'm not happy with SS new earning scheme, believe me, but unless you can tell the future, I think it is far to early to draw conclusions on whether it is worth going on with SS, compared to IS (I'm on IS too).I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :oMaybe it's too early to tell, maybe there is still hope, but the first 2 days of June give me a different impression. I only get 0,10$ - 0,14$ sales and if all of June will be like this I will end up with only a third of what I used to make on Shuttertock and what I still make on iStock with almost the same port. That's why I will stay on IS, but will deactivate my account on SS by the end of the month, should my earnings continue to be as low as they are now.
The key points for my decision will be SS new RPD and the level reset on January 1st. It would be quite interesting to fill this thread (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-is-ss-rpd-turning-out-for-you-in-this-first-month/msg551036/?topicseen (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-is-ss-rpd-turning-out-for-you-in-this-first-month/msg551036/?topicseen) on a regular basis over the year.
Post by: blue on June 02, 2020, 12:06
It's just the opposite for me...I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :o
I had several hugh sales with IS nearly 100 € per sale - that makes up for the low sales in IS.
But I never ever had just one big sale with SS - it´s always just those cheap subscription sales on SS.
Post by: cobalt on June 02, 2020, 12:11
I also stopped uploading to IS when they did that, but as far as I remember there was no possibility to delete just some images, you could delete all images, or none. How was it possible to delete just the best sellers? I'd like to do that too.I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :oWhen IS lowered to 2 cent a couple of years ago, I deleted my best selling images there, and stopped uploading. Then in september last year, they paid a decent royalty by mistake for some sales, and when they took back the money, I finally terminated my account.
They disabled that option after we used it. I deactivated my bestsellers and the files they gave away for free over. 1.3 million times. I simply did not want to see them abused in this way ever again. It was really, really painful, especially emotionally.
But they gave us no choice.
Post by: Atomazul on June 02, 2020, 12:29
Post by: Horizon on June 02, 2020, 12:37
Post by: dragonblade on June 02, 2020, 12:47
Post by: Jens G on June 02, 2020, 13:49
Exactly. It was possible, and easy, to deactivate for a period after the announcement.I also stopped uploading to IS when they did that, but as far as I remember there was no possibility to delete just some images, you could delete all images, or none. How was it possible to delete just the best sellers? I'd like to do that too.I don't understand people who disable their port at SS because they don't accept to get 10˘ for a sale while they have a port at IS where they can get as few as 2˘ for a sale :oWhen IS lowered to 2 cent a couple of years ago, I deleted my best selling images there, and stopped uploading. Then in september last year, they paid a decent royalty by mistake for some sales, and when they took back the money, I finally terminated my account.
They disabled that option after we used it. I deactivated my bestsellers and the files they gave away for free over. 1.3 million times. I simply did not want to see them abused in this way ever again. It was really, really painful, especially emotionally.
But they gave us no choice.
Post by: cobalt on June 02, 2020, 14:03
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/)
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
„ Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/) ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338) , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy) , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ (https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/) . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)“
Post by: Lizard on June 02, 2020, 14:16
Post by: r2d2 on June 02, 2020, 14:18
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play „divide and rule“.
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/)
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
„ Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/) ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338) , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy) , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ (https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/) . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)“
unbelievably... Please stand togehter and let us fight back! Shutdown for Shutterstock!
Post by: davidbautista on June 02, 2020, 14:21
Post by: Mimi the Cat on June 02, 2020, 14:40
Hi, what with those 0.1 sales in SS?
Its the new normal didn't you know?
Here's the forum post where you can read all about it
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/
Post by: marthamarks on June 02, 2020, 15:06
This agency are just like vampires - s-u-c-k-i-n-g us dry.
It ain't s-u-c-k-i-n-g me dry because I am SOOOOO OUTTA THERE!!
Post by: gbalex on June 02, 2020, 15:13
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play „divide and rule“.
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/)
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
„ Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/) ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338) , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy) , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ (https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/) . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)“
Again this is not a new tactic, they did the same thing when they made changes at BS.
They are who they have always been!
Post by: cosus on June 02, 2020, 16:24
Two days ago 59 subscription sells mean at least $22,42 (not mention that single and other). Someone stole me more than $11 today. I'm speechless.
Post by: zstoimenov on June 02, 2020, 17:43
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play „divide and rule“.This seems like a reaction to what is going on and not a pre-calculated move. I hope that they continue to feel the heat as more and more creators see their reports and payments shrinking.
Post by: Dimco on June 02, 2020, 17:53
Post by: qunamax on June 02, 2020, 19:16
Obviously they want a crowd of mobile phone newbies to grow their collection, uploading like crazy just to reach that next level all while never passing level 1 and maximizing SS profits. If you read between the lines in their announcement that's exactly what they are saying.
They wanted that for some time now, first they let anyone with mobile phone in - carefully waiting for mobile phone camera tech to mature to decent image quality level, then they advertise for contributors in developing countries and now when they have enough newbie contributors they roll out the system.
We might be mad, but newbies will be swarming facebook groups announcing they just made their first 0.10$ sale or payout and congratulate each other on it, while SS is laughing their *ss off.
SS are betting that from quantity there will be just enough quality not to look like complete trash collection in the eyes of buyers and competition.
It's a system very well known in any third world or developing country in every single company (especially the foreign western companies that come to exploit minimum wage workforce), you don't need to know your job, you'll learn something (or not, doesn't matter as long as you do what your boss tells you), but you must work for minimum wage or we will replace you in an instant. The quality of product is not that important too.
This might come as shock to westerners, but for us from developing countries it's everyday reality, I expected this exact thing from SS and I'm sure all other microstock companies will follow eventually.
There have been several attempts to run a stock agency mostly on the iphone shooter, eyeem being the last attempt.
The problem: this enthusiastic crowd has zero interest in creating the content customers need: high quality, very modern very fresh content of business teams, great lifestyle of families etc...
Just because people have a phone, it does not make them good photographers. Just look at any social media feed on any site. What people normally shoot is ugly and very low quality.
Eyeem tries to filter a few useful files out of millions and sends them to getty to round out the large getty library. So that customers who want images with „taken by amateur with iphone“ style is something they have available.
Just look at the flickr collection or the eyeem collection on getty, and you will quickly see, that while some of the images are interesting, the majority are useless for the serious buyer.
I interpreted what they said in the opposite way, that they want to get rid of all the small time uploaders and mostly work with teams and stock factories.
They could drastically downsize their editing team and probably streamline quite a few other things internally.
In the last 3 years they blew up the library drastically so that they can go round saying they have a library with over 300 million files.
Now they want to cut it all down to more professional content.
What they didn‘t think of is that even large stock houses have their pride and will not accept their work sold for 10 cents.
The pros have a lot of options and, just like anyone else, do not appreciate having their income cut in the middle of a pandemic with 6 days notice.
I wouldn‘t be surprised if it was exactly the top quality shooters they were hoping will stay who walk out first.
eta: the best selling content in eyeem does not come from „amateurs with a phone“. Many top sellers are normal photographers or professional stock shooters who just produce content „with social media vibe“ specifically for eyeem.
Whatever way you turn it: high quality fresh stock with great vibe and sales value always comes from very experienced people.
I think you might be overestimating SS's need for quality, we all witnessed how they opened their gates for signups with virtually no entry test and also let in all kinds of mediocre images spam. When I write phone shooter I also mean any kind of total amateur, whatever the equipment but I used it as example as there is swarm of newbie questions on facebook groups and in majority of these you can see the screenshots of SS mobile app.
I'm not convinced they are trying to filter out newbies and rely on top contributors from which they get smaller percentage. I think they want to filter out middle ground the most.
Post by: zstoimenov on June 02, 2020, 19:25
Edit: I expect them to hide the portfolio disable buttons next.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on June 02, 2020, 21:05
Edit: I expect them to hide the portfolio disable buttons next.
I'm surprised they didn't do it already. Even more surprised they didn't disable it right before they announced the change. But yes they're probably working on removing it right now. It's a big site and even simple changes take time to make and test.
Personally doesn't matter to me. I saw the 10 cent sales and immediately disabled my port. If they force the issue to remove the disable buttons to where I need to delete my account, go ahead. Don't care. All of these stock sites taught me a long time ago that I need to diversify income to where they dont matter. And I have. And they don't.
What's ironic is these stock sites have done so much to diminish our earnings from significant to meaningless for so many of us. In doing so, they've also lost any leverage they have over us. If they paid us all really well and the majority of us were making big money, it would be a different story. If this happened years ago when my earnings were really good, I wouldn't easily be able to walk away. Today, I can, and have. Karma.
Post by: marthamarks on June 02, 2020, 23:22
What's ironic is these stock sites have done so much to diminish our earnings from significant to meaningless for so many of us. In doing so, they've also lost any leverage they have over us. If they paid us all really well and the majority of us were making big money, it would be a different story. If this happened years ago when my earnings were really good, I wouldn't easily be able to walk away. Today, I can, and have. Karma.
Exactly. Well said.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 02, 2020, 23:29
Edit: I expect them to hide the portfolio disable buttons next.
I'm surprised they didn't do it already. Even more surprised they didn't disable it right before they announced the change. ...
I was fully prepared for them to take away the on/off switch, but as I see how many people are disabling portfolios - I watched the number of photos drop by 70,000 in a half an hour this afternoon while I was tweeting some #BoycottShutterstock stuff - it dawns on me that the more we disable, the less likely they are to remove the control.
At some point, it becomes in their interest to leave them enabled if they believe they can talk contributors into restoring images. Come the end of June they'll have more financials to report and an image count. They may not want to fess up that they inspired a boycott and only have a small growth or a decline in the collection. Also, it would force contributors to choose to close their accounts or delete images if the button were gone - all much more work to manage than the on/off switch.
As they couldn't manage the code to get royalties into the correct columns after the change, they may not want to make things more complicated for engineering than it needs to be :)
Post by: Hildegarde on June 02, 2020, 23:40
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on June 02, 2020, 23:48
Edit: I expect them to hide the portfolio disable buttons next.
I'm surprised they didn't do it already. Even more surprised they didn't disable it right before they announced the change. ...
I was fully prepared for them to take away the on/off switch, but as I see how many people are disabling portfolios - I watched the number of photos drop by 70,000 in a half an hour this afternoon while I was tweeting some #BoycottShutterstock stuff - it dawns on me that the more we disable, the less likely they are to remove the control.
At some point, it becomes in their interest to leave them enabled if they believe they can talk contributors into restoring images. Come the end of June they'll have more financials to report and an image count. They may not want to fess up that they inspired a boycott and only have a small growth or a decline in the collection. Also, it would force contributors to choose to close their accounts or delete images if the button were gone - all much more work to manage than the on/off switch.
As they couldn't manage the code to get royalties into the correct columns after the change, they may not want to make things more complicated for engineering than it needs to be :)
I doubt they've budged from their dictator approach. They're removing forum and Facebook posts, banning people, not responding in the forum, etc. I still think they're working on whatever they can do to squash contributors including disabling the buttons. Gotta show us peons who's boss even if it hurts them.
Post by: gnirtS on June 03, 2020, 00:27
Quote
We are Deeply saddened on the fact that there is a slight cut down in the earnings that Shutterstock used to offer earlier.
The reason of Decline in earnings has been the uncertain pandemic which has caused a huge effect on all the businesses including ours.
The world wide conditions are critical at the moment.We believe that with the passage of time things are expected to improve and once it would happen then we would try to raise the earning opportunities with Shutterstock.
You can learn more about it on the following link https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-update (https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-earnings-update)
We need your support during this harsh time around.
Obviously thats complete BS. This is a company that made several hundred million dollars of profit and has plenty of cash lying around to weather the 2 MONTHS.
A change like this would be planned far far ahead of the pandemic. Its been tightening for a while. Just recently the opt out of sensitive removed, subs for videos and so on and now this. Its a long term, planned strategy.
They're attempting to pretend to be sympathetic. Maybe some people will go "aww cute", most wont accept it.
Looks like they've turned to page 2 of their plan. The sympathetic copy/paste and the alleged divide and rule special offer to other people.
SS counter-attack if you like.
Post by: wordplanet on June 03, 2020, 01:32
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play „divide and rule“.
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/)
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
„ Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/) ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338) , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy) , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ (https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/) . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)“
Joined - my membership is pending. Thanks for the info. - Marianne Campolongo
Post by: Snow on June 03, 2020, 02:34
What's ironic is these stock sites have done so much to diminish our earnings from significant to meaningless for so many of us. In doing so, they've also lost any leverage they have over us. If they paid us all really well and the majority of us were making big money, it would be a different story. If this happened years ago when my earnings were really good, I wouldn't easily be able to walk away. Today, I can, and have. Karma.Exactly. Well said.
Spot on!
Post by: Noedelhap on June 03, 2020, 02:56
Oh look, on day 8 of their shitstorm they are trying to play „divide and rule“.
Nope, will not work, will totally,totally backfire.
They really have absolutely no clue how internet communities work, do they? And they have had a huge producer community for 15 years.
This strategy might work in authoritarian places, but not with free artists.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/page/140/)
Everything they do about this shitstorm is COMPLETLY wrong.
But it does tell you what management really thinks about the lowly masses...
„ Everyone stop and read this. Its very important. Continue to quote it so that it doesn't get buried in the forum and others will see it. Many members of the Stock Submitters Coalition (the new coalition created to fight changes like these and you can join here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/) ) have reported to us that they received a communication from Shutterstock wanting them to sign a separate deal that will allow them to stay at what they said was the current percentage (Im assuming that means the previous structure) until the end of January and then they would be taken down to level 1 like everyone else. They are hoping to quell the rebellion by throwing a carrot in front of a select group of contributors and making them feel special. Just when you thought they couldn't get worse they go and do something like this. They are now offering different deals to select people in hopes of this all going away. Not to mention the deal they are offering still sucks. If you get one of these letters/emails I implore you to not sign it. In fact, I beg you to post it here and show the rest of the contributors what Shutterstock is trying to do behind everyones backs.
Again, keep quoting and reposting this for others to see. Join the Stock Submitters Coalition and help fight this. We are over 600 members strong now and represent a portfolio of over 7.65 million. Our members have pushed articles out to many websites: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338 (https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338) , https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy (https://www.dpreview.com/news/7607355790/shutterstock-announces-new-earnings-structure-contributors-are-anything-but-happy) , https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/ (https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/) . Join in and help make a difference. https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)“
I can't find anything about it on the FB page, or any first-hand stories from contributors who have been approached by SS. Is there a source somewhere?
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 03, 2020, 03:35
The reported email doesn't make a lot of sense. It basically promises to keep people on current new tier percentage until January first which already the way the new scheme works. Interpreting it as referring to the old scheme also doesn't make sense as that wasn't a percentage scheme.
As reported it is also in broken English.
My guess is Phishing scam not from SS where you open attached contract and get a virus.
Post by: jackboy on June 03, 2020, 04:44
Post by: click_click on June 03, 2020, 06:01
After 2 days under the new tariff regime. A simple observation, I have a 15k portfolio and I'm in L5... I lost a little more than a third of my usual income. I work mainly with models and the cost of the productions is already lowed to the maximum to still produce quality images. I would like to hear the voice of the big image producers, with their teams of stylists, retouchers etc ... plus the cost of the models. How do they see the future with 30% less revenue... If this trend continues.Exactly, I don't do model shoots but those who do have massive expenses & require a lot more gear to work with, have been working on a stripped budget as it was. Now I doubt that many big contributors are able to continue with these new rates.
If expenses go down either quality and/or quantity will go down. I have no idea which group of contributors is actually not impacted negatively by this change. All of us are taking a hit.
That sounds to me like an overall loss of uploads and decline of quality content.
If at least big producers or very successful contributors would have actually gotten a raise it would have caused an impulse of higher quality content if that is what SS is after.
But under the current conditions it appears that SS only wants to create inflated numbers for their shareholders. Looking like a desperate attempt to add value to the company...
I'm no trading professional but a successful company doesn't have a chart like this...
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 03, 2020, 06:04
After 2 days under the new tariff regime. A simple observation, I have a 15k portfolio and I'm in L5... I lost a little more than a third of my usual income. I work mainly with models and the cost of the productions is already lowed to the maximum to still produce quality images. I would like to hear the voice of the big image producers, with their teams of stylists, retouchers etc ... plus the cost of the models. How do they see the future with 30% less revenue... If this trend continues.And don't forget we are all down to under half that come first of January...
Post by: PZF on June 03, 2020, 06:14
Post by: thx9000 on June 03, 2020, 08:25
Post by: ikostudio on June 03, 2020, 09:16
After all the we all are having 10 cents download!
Post by: Deyan Georgiev Photography on June 03, 2020, 11:57
Post by: Tenebroso on June 03, 2020, 12:08
Obviously they want a crowd of mobile phone newbies to grow their collection, uploading like crazy just to reach that next level all while never passing level 1 and maximizing SS profits. If you read between the lines in their announcement that's exactly what they are saying.
They wanted that for some time now, first they let anyone with mobile phone in - carefully waiting for mobile phone camera tech to mature to decent image quality level, then they advertise for contributors in developing countries and now when they have enough newbie contributors they roll out the system.
We might be mad, but newbies will be swarming facebook groups announcing they just made their first 0.10$ sale or payout and congratulate each other on it, while SS is laughing their *ss off.
SS are betting that from quantity there will be just enough quality not to look like complete trash collection in the eyes of buyers and competition.
It's a system very well known in any third world or developing country in every single company (especially the foreign western companies that come to exploit minimum wage workforce), you don't need to know your job, you'll learn something (or not, doesn't matter as long as you do what your boss tells you), but you must work for minimum wage or we will replace you in an instant. The quality of product is not that important too.
This might come as shock to westerners, but for us from developing countries it's everyday reality, I expected this exact thing from SS and I'm sure all other microstock companies will follow eventually.
It is not about what others do, it is about the dignity of each individual.
Photography is done by the photographer, if you think that with the mobile you are able to sell for 10 cents in SS, do it. If you think SS will continue to work, spend your time on SS. Don't care about others. Worry about yourself. In countries with VIRUSES, risk of civil war, the risk of nuclear war with China, risk of the Great Depression, I do not think that investing time by 10 Cents is future.
Rather worry about you, not about SS or about countries with low economies. Life takes many turns, and I doubt that the USA will ever be a world power again. Of course, I think that the USA will recover a place to live in coexistence. SS has ceased to exist.
The SS thing is not now, it was seen coming for a long time. This is the visualization of the problem. SS has already shown the public its farewell as a company.
Post by: Mantis on June 03, 2020, 12:34
Edit: I expect them to hide the portfolio disable buttons next.
I'm surprised they didn't do it already. Even more surprised they didn't disable it right before they announced the change. ...
I was fully prepared for them to take away the on/off switch, but as I see how many people are disabling portfolios - I watched the number of photos drop by 70,000 in a half an hour this afternoon while I was tweeting some #BoycottShutterstock stuff - it dawns on me that the more we disable, the less likely they are to remove the control.
At some point, it becomes in their interest to leave them enabled if they believe they can talk contributors into restoring images. Come the end of June they'll have more financials to report and an image count. They may not want to fess up that they inspired a boycott and only have a small growth or a decline in the collection. Also, it would force contributors to choose to close their accounts or delete images if the button were gone - all much more work to manage than the on/off switch.
As they couldn't manage the code to get royalties into the correct columns after the change, they may not want to make things more complicated for engineering than it needs to be :)
I doubt they've budged from their dictator approach. They're removing forum and Facebook posts, banning people, not responding in the forum, etc. I still think they're working on whatever they can do to squash contributors including disabling the buttons. Gotta show us peons who's boss even if it hurts them.
They have removed multiple Facebook posts of mine and I didn’t even cuss.
Post by: cobalt on June 03, 2020, 12:45
Posted elsewhere but I'll post it here too.
The reported email doesn't make a lot of sense. It basically promises to keep people on current new tier percentage until January first which already the way the new scheme works. Interpreting it as referring to the old scheme also doesn't make sense as that wasn't a percentage scheme.
As reported it is also in broken English.
My guess is Phishing scam not from SS where you open attached contract and get a virus.
Interesting point.
Would be great if somewhere those letters could be seen.
Also, SS could easily come out of hiding and deny they did that.
No denial...leaves a shade.
Post by: gnirtS on June 04, 2020, 00:39
Whoever got that accepted, well done!
Better yet, extra marks for somehow getting "fuck you" accepted as a keyword.
Not bothered hiding the uploading ID because i dont think he cares - he currently has 1 file online and its that!
Post by: Firn on June 04, 2020, 01:05
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
Whoever got that accepted, well done!
Better yet, extra marks for somehow getting "fuck you" accepted as a keyword.
Not bothered hiding the uploading ID because i dont think he cares - he currently has 1 file online and its that!
This is a true masterpiece.
Post by: Rage on June 04, 2020, 01:21
Jon sells a good chunk of his shares. Guess he sees where the company value is going. Talk about shareholders moving out
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on June 04, 2020, 04:00
He'd be selling a lot more than that if he was worried about where the value is going... probably just freeing up a bit of cash for a new car or something.
Post by: gnirtS on June 04, 2020, 04:24
Not a shock as all the changes directly benefit the share holders.
Post by: Horizon on June 04, 2020, 04:54
What are they doing?
Post by: Firn on June 04, 2020, 05:29
Something is going very wrong at SS right now since this started. Sales come in for 0.12, 0.18 and so on! old files that have hardly sold at all are beginning to see the light?
What are they doing?
It's hard to say. Might be sheer coincidence. Sometimes they test out different algorithms, but they confirmed before that these tests are not run on the whole database, but individual contributors, so someone might see a change in sales pattern, while others are not affected at all or see a different pattern.
For me my sales have dropped by around half compared to last week, but I don't see any unusual sales of old files for example. It's the same mixture of images that sell from time to time and a few new images.
Post by: gnirtS on June 04, 2020, 05:35
This week is up and down massively. I cant see any consistency or trend - its just a mess.
This week ive had a day of numbers so low i thought it was Saturday, the day later i got about 2x the usual volume.
Post by: everest on June 04, 2020, 05:47
Their stock has gone up slightly.
Not a shock as all the changes directly benefit the share holders.
The next quarters I guess that Stock will go up without a doubt as net earning will rise dramatically with the commission slash. 2020,2021 maybe up.........from there on lets see. If Mr Oringer is clever he will sell before that because sooner or later clients will jump to the site has the best offer and I am quite sure that Shutterstock will not be in that list.
Post by: Chichikov on June 04, 2020, 06:06
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
Whoever got that accepted, well done!
Better yet, extra marks for somehow getting "fuck you" accepted as a keyword.
Not bothered hiding the uploading ID because i dont think he cares - he currently has 1 file online and its that!
Standing ovation!!
Post by: ikostudio on June 04, 2020, 06:19
Its all about the greedy investors.
Investors matters more than the soul and heart of the company.
(https://www.tradingview.com/x/SDDj03dR/)
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 04, 2020, 12:50
Bollocks
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Shutterstock/posts/?ref=page_internal (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Shutterstock/posts/?ref=page_internal)
I've given them my feedback
Want to add yours?
Post by: Smithore on June 04, 2020, 13:05
Contributors who have opted out, do you encountering the same issue ?
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 04, 2020, 13:12
Shutterstock has added a post to their Facebook account this morning saying, among other things "we understand your frustrations" and "your feedback is very important to us"
Bollocks
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Shutterstock/posts/?ref=page_internal (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Shutterstock/posts/?ref=page_internal)
I've given them my feedback
Want to add yours?
"Open conversation is essential to any community, however, we also want to provide a safe and positive space for members of the community from all backgrounds—no matter the age, race, sexual orientation, gender, religion or ethnicity. Therefore, discrimination and harassment towards any persons, profanities, hateful/offensive language, bots and spam will be removed."
Read as "we will be censoring any posts that paint us in a bad light" So low to try and pass it off as protecting vulnerable minorities in the current climate, especially given views of the high ups there discussed on other threads.
"...If you have any questions, please email [email protected], and we will get back to you as soon as we can."
i.e. stop posting about this on here on social media, where we will be removing it as per above.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 04, 2020, 13:15
There's something strange, i've opt out for 7000+ photos and 500+ video selling, when i'm consulting my dashboard I can see now there is still 970 photos in my portfolio, that's means nothing !!!!
Contributors who have opted out, do you encountering the same issue ?
Yes. My portfolio count went down in fits and starts and finally reached zero. I also saw that when the count on the screen you showed was one number, if you clicked on the portfolio link right there it'd show a different number.
It'll all go to zero shortly :)
Post by: aitor on June 04, 2020, 13:17
Enviado desde mi AGS2-W09 mediante Tapatalk
Post by: gnirtS on June 04, 2020, 13:28
Or blocked on twitter. Or blocked on facebook.
Or posted in that 170 page thread they keep deleting posts from. Or the other threads elsewhere in the forum they're ignoring.
They know *exactly* how bad this would be way way ahead of time.
Post by: Smithore on June 04, 2020, 13:28
Quote
Yes. My portfolio count went down in fits and starts and finally reached zero. I also saw that when the count on the screen you showed was one number, if you clicked on the portfolio link right there it'd show a different number.
It'll all go to zero shortly
Ok, i've understood too late and opt in to check if something change, now i can't opt out again :-[, i hope i can do it very soon .
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 04, 2020, 13:50
People tried giving feedback - they ended up banned or accounts ceased!
Or blocked on twitter. Or blocked on facebook.
Or posted in that 170 page thread they keep deleting posts from. Or the other threads elsewhere in the forum they're ignoring.
They know *exactly* how bad this would be way way ahead of time.
They did, but equally their underhandedness has actually worked out pretty well for them.
Even the people really outraged are complaining about SS taking 85% of royalties (nope, minimum 85% in that tier, probably much more) or people in higher tiers complaining that their income has dropped 50% (nope SS has cleverly bought this in half way through the year, your income will be dropping a lot more over the whole calendar year thanks to that January reset).
All this is far too in the weeds to explain to customers and that's the beauty of it.
Most infuriating thing about this is the dishonesty with regards to the percentage and the (unspeakably cruel) January reset. There's no logical reason for the reset other than masking how much you are actually loosing. There is no reason not to have a rolling 12 month tier other than that.
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on June 04, 2020, 14:19
There's something strange, i've opt out for 7000+ photos and 500+ video selling, when i'm consulting my dashboard I can see now there is still 970 photos in my portfolio, that's means nothing !!!!
Contributors who have opted out, do you encountering the same issue ?
Yes. My portfolio count went down in fits and starts and finally reached zero. I also saw that when the count on the screen you showed was one number, if you clicked on the portfolio link right there it'd show a different number.
It'll all go to zero shortly :)
So when you disable, are the files deleted? My portfolio now shows 0 files. Not that I care if they're deleted. Just curious.
Post by: obj owl on June 04, 2020, 14:21
There's something strange, i've opt out for 7000+ photos and 500+ video selling, when i'm consulting my dashboard I can see now there is still 970 photos in my portfolio, that's means nothing !!!!
Contributors who have opted out, do you encountering the same issue ?
Yes. My portfolio count went down in fits and starts and finally reached zero. I also saw that when the count on the screen you showed was one number, if you clicked on the portfolio link right there it'd show a different number.
It'll all go to zero shortly :)
So when you disable, are the files deleted? My portfolio now shows 0 files. Not that I care if they're deleted. Just curious.
No you can turn it on just as quick as you turned it off.
Post by: aitor on June 04, 2020, 14:29
Enviado desde mi AGS2-W09 mediante Tapatalk
Post by: Smithore on June 04, 2020, 16:33
Quote
So when you disable, are the files deleted? My portfolio now shows 0 files. Not that I care if they're deleted. Just curious.
I guess not, it can takes also many hours for the files appear again, i just hope tomorrow i can turn it off again.
Post by: cobalt on June 04, 2020, 16:52
Their stock has gone up slightly.
Not a shock as all the changes directly benefit the share holders.
No, because it is the last day of record to get the dividend. Once that is paid out middle of June the stock will self correct and drop.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 04, 2020, 16:59
There's something strange, i've opt out for 7000+ photos and 500+ video selling, when i'm consulting my dashboard I can see now there is still 970 photos in my portfolio, that's means nothing !!!!
Contributors who have opted out, do you encountering the same issue ?
Yes. My portfolio count went down in fits and starts and finally reached zero. I also saw that when the count on the screen you showed was one number, if you clicked on the portfolio link right there it'd show a different number.
It'll all go to zero shortly :)
So when you disable, are the files deleted? My portfolio now shows 0 files. Not that I care if they're deleted. Just curious.
When I returned to being an independent in 2011, I turned the portfolio back on and all the undeleted images were still there.
Right now, for all the sets I had in the catalog manager, I can select an image, click the edit pencil and up comes the watermarked image with all the metadata for me to edit, so I am fairly sure the data is all still in the database
Post by: EIPHOTO on June 04, 2020, 17:11
Anyone know?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 04, 2020, 17:17
So when you opt of sales.. can you still view the date of what images sold month by month and the all the sets in the catalogue manager with the earning amounts and contents of each set? Or when you opt out of sales is everything gone?
Anyone know?
I've checked the catalog manager earnings stats for a few of my sets and it all looks intact. From the contributor home page, I can still see the top performers list with earnings and download numbers.
The only thing that went away is the top keywords for downloading an image in the top performers list - which is a shame as that had lots of great insight.
Not sure if I have all my images in one set or another, but I can't add anything as the main display of all images has nothing.
I would advise anyone about to delete who doesn't have sets to select all their images and put them in a set (and I'm not sure if you can do a select all across multiple pages; obviously can't test that out now :) )
Post by: EIPHOTO on June 04, 2020, 17:40
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 04, 2020, 18:42
Thank you for the reply. Do you know if one can still go to earnings summary and see the daily stats and what was used day by day and month by month for each year? Will it still how the thumbnail of each image and show what they earned on each particular day?
Yes - as long as you are just disabling the sales of your portfolio, all that past information remains
Here is an embarrassing earnings page I just took a snapshot of from November 2005 (when I was relatively new there)
Post by: EIPHOTO on June 04, 2020, 19:06
Post by: Zalee on June 04, 2020, 20:59
Shutterstock has added a post to their Facebook account this morning saying, among other things "we understand your frustrations" and "your feedback is very important to us"
Bollocks
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Shutterstock/posts/?ref=page_internal (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Shutterstock/posts/?ref=page_internal)
I've given them my feedback
Want to add yours?
Thanks Jo Ann, I have left a comment also. I've also disabled my port, even though it's very small some of my images are top images for certain searches. I will concentrate on other agencies. I'm so sad to see Shutterstock do this, I thought they were one of the better behaved agencies :(
Post by: gnirtS on June 04, 2020, 21:22
People tried giving feedback - they ended up banned or accounts ceased!
Or blocked on twitter. Or blocked on facebook.
Or posted in that 170 page thread they keep deleting posts from. Or the other threads elsewhere in the forum they're ignoring.
They know *exactly* how bad this would be way way ahead of time.
They did, but equally their underhandedness has actually worked out pretty well for them.
Even the people really outraged are complaining about SS taking 85% of royalties (nope, minimum 85% in that tier, probably much more) or people in higher tiers complaining that their income has dropped 50% (nope SS has cleverly bought this in half way through the year, your income will be dropping a lot more over the whole calendar year thanks to that January reset).
All this is far too in the weeds to explain to customers and that's the beauty of it.
Most infuriating thing about this is the dishonesty with regards to the percentage and the (unspeakably cruel) January reset. There's no logical reason for the reset other than masking how much you are actually loosing. There is no reason not to have a rolling 12 month tier other than that.
Now I've actually got some data I think the immediate change to sub and other prices are going to affect peoples income more than the January reset. We focused on the wrong thing.
Even before that most people are down to 0.1 to 0.17 or so for a sub.
In January, that'll just mean a few more .1 instead of .12s etc.
So although the reset makes things worse, the most damaging policy is already with us.
33 sales today. All subs. Average RPD $0.13 from level 5.
Most people's income for images is made up majority through subs.
Post by: wordplanet on June 05, 2020, 00:00
There's something strange, i've opt out for 7000+ photos and 500+ video selling, when i'm consulting my dashboard I can see now there is still 970 photos in my portfolio, that's means nothing !!!!
Contributors who have opted out, do you encountering the same issue ?
Mine shows 0. I did it May 29 or 30 & it took until Monday to show 0.
Post by: wordplanet on June 05, 2020, 00:11
People tried giving feedback - they ended up banned or accounts ceased!
Or blocked on twitter. Or blocked on facebook.
Or posted in that 170 page thread they keep deleting posts from. Or the other threads elsewhere in the forum they're ignoring.
They know *exactly* how bad this would be way way ahead of time.
They did, but equally their underhandedness has actually worked out pretty well for them.
Even the people really outraged are complaining about SS taking 85% of royalties (nope, minimum 85% in that tier, probably much more) or people in higher tiers complaining that their income has dropped 50% (nope SS has cleverly bought this in half way through the year, your income will be dropping a lot more over the whole calendar year thanks to that January reset).
All this is far too in the weeds to explain to customers and that's the beauty of it.
Most infuriating thing about this is the dishonesty with regards to the percentage and the (unspeakably cruel) January reset. There's no logical reason for the reset other than masking how much you are actually loosing. There is no reason not to have a rolling 12 month tier other than that.
Now I've actually got some data I think the immediate change to sub and other prices are going to affect peoples income more than the January reset. We focused on the wrong thing.
Even before that most people are down to 0.1 to 0.17 or so for a sub.
In January, that'll just mean a few more .1 instead of .12s etc.
So although the reset makes things worse, the most damaging policy is already with us.
33 sales today. All subs. Average RPD $0.13 from level 5.
Most people's income for images is made up majority through subs.
Yep, as I suspected the level wouldn't make much difference when most sales are a percentage of $0.22 (750 dl subs). When they dropped the guaranteed $28 for ELs and moved the bar to 500,000 from 250,000 copies, even with my then small portfolio (about 300 files at the time) I saw my income drop markedly and I wasn't getting a ton of ELs but with a portfolio of mostly travel images, I was getting ELs for books and magazines, I got fewer and they dropped to $14-20 and other book and magazine uses became $0.36 subs - so with this latest move I knew it would just be the kiss of death. All ss had going for them was volume, but without the old ELs it was harder to see a decent return - and with most dls projected to earn $0.10 volume will never be great enough.
Post by: wordplanet on June 05, 2020, 00:12
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
Whoever got that accepted, well done!
Better yet, extra marks for somehow getting "fuck you" accepted as a keyword.
Not bothered hiding the uploading ID because i dont think he cares - he currently has 1 file online and its that!
asia_sko is my new hero (heroine?)
Post by: wordplanet on June 05, 2020, 00:18
PS your old sales are far less embarrassing than mine LOL.
Post by: Snow on June 05, 2020, 01:53
So when you opt of sales.. can you still view the date of what images sold month by month and the all the sets in the catalogue manager with the earning amounts and contents of each set? Or when you opt out of sales is everything gone?
Anyone know?
I've checked the catalog manager earnings stats for a few of my sets and it all looks intact. From the contributor home page, I can still see the top performers list with earnings and download numbers.
The only thing that went away is the top keywords for downloading an image in the top performers list - which is a shame as that had lots of great insight.
Not sure if I have all my images in one set or another, but I can't add anything as the main display of all images has nothing.
I would advise anyone about to delete who doesn't have sets to select all their images and put them in a set (and I'm not sure if you can do a select all across multiple pages; obviously can't test that out now :) )
I already disabled my video portfolio before June but was going to leave my image portfolio up until Jan 2021. I figured being at level 4 I would be getting the same $0.38 subs, boy was I wrong!
I also noticed I had quite a few regular sellers that were not yet on Adobe and went trough those yesterday. My current earnings are close $35 and as soon as they hit $35 I will lower my payout settings to minimum and also disable my portfolio.
I will also take your advise in creating a set that holds all my images, thanks for the heads-up!
I am in a pretty bad situation right now since unlike others Adobe never took off for me, only slightly and even seems to go down now as well after SS change. Somehow I always get the feeling that these agencies are working together, especially SS and AS since many report good sales at one agency while it’s the opposite for others, then the next month it’s reversed. I’m hoping I’m wrong and this will change in the near future, if not then Ill probably leave Microstock altogether :-\
Take care peeps!
Post by: Josephine on June 05, 2020, 02:35
In my oppinion this is very likely.
Post by: pics2 on June 05, 2020, 03:02
Many contributors are praising Adobe. What about if Adobe just follows SS?Unfortunately, even at this level and at this time when Adobe are considered more fair to contributors, the income I get from them is not enough to compensate for SS loses. This is unsustainable business now. It just doesn't matter for me anymore what Adobe does, they are not going to take over SS customers. SS is not shutting down, they screwed contributors,there won't be much customer migration because they are not affected. Maybe some of them will hear about our problems and actually care about it, maybe 10% no more.
In my oppinion this is very likely.
One more thing is very important - Adobe and the others are not ready to take over the leadership in the industry. All these years all these agencies were parasitizing on SS. In a way that contributors produce their content primarily for SS, because SS was their biggest earner, and then they send already made content to other agencies to earn some extra money. Without SS the business was not sustainable. So, we are relying on these parasites now, that is not good position for us at all. They are used to be parasites, they have parasites mentality and it can't be changed easily.
Post by: Snow on June 05, 2020, 03:26
I think if we want to survive in this market we'll have to start thinking about creating our own platform since there's no other option left anymore.
Is symbiostock still a good option? now that we have many more on our side (unlike DPC) it could take off this time no? Or maybe Pixels.com licensing?
Post by: MicroVet on June 05, 2020, 03:27
Unfortunately I don't know how willing is Adobe to make a move because that would empower the contributors and give us a sense that collective actions and pressure does make a difference.
So, in the short term Adobe may see this as a good move to get a greater market share but in the long term the sense of power and unity the contributors gained could mean trouble for them.
After all we're talking about big capitalists whose worst nightmare is having the workers united. As an example, I know a story of a big farmer that decided to pay more to his workers because people were little more than slaves in the region. He ended up never having a crop after that because the other farmers burnt down all his crops fearing that their workers would start demanding better payment. That farmer had to leave the region.
So, as much as I would like to see Adobe make a move, the truth is Free Market and competition is an illusion and things are always under control and well orchestrated by the big players. At least in my country Free Market meant the establishment of Cartels that act as monopolies.
Post by: Snow on June 05, 2020, 03:36
I really hope that Adobe would make a move, namely accepting editorial photos and videos which are a huge part of my SS income and other agencies and is a very large market.
Unfortunately I don't know how willing is Adobe to make a move because that would empower the contributors and give us a sense that collective actions and pressure does make a difference.
So, in the short term Adobe may see this as a good move to get a greater market share but in the long term the sense of power and unity the contributors gained could mean trouble for them.
After all we're talking about big capitalists whose worst nightmare is having the workers united. As an example, I know a story of a big farmer that decided to pay more to his workers because people were little more than slaves in the region. He ended up never having a crop after that because the other farmers burnt down all his crops fearing that their workers would start demanding better payment. That farmer had to leave the region.
So, as much as I would like to see Adobe make a move, the truth is Free Market and competition is an illusion and things are always under control and well orchestrated by the big players. At least in my country Free Market meant the establishment of Cartels that act as monopolies.
I haven't even thought about that, very good point and makes a lot of sense! This would explain the silence.
Post by: Firn on June 05, 2020, 03:55
Many contributors are praising Adobe. What about if Adobe just follows SS?
In my oppinion this is very likely.
I was having a similar thought. We are all focusing on Adobe, telling other contributors to go there, telling customers to buy from there and in 2 or 3 years Adobe might bite us in the a** as thanks and lower their royalities the same way.
However, one reason why I have high hopes that this will not happen is that Adobe, most of all, is a softwear developing company and only secondary a stock site. And imagine what happened if they pissed of contributors the way Shutterstock is doing now? We photographers and illustrators are not just contributors for Adobe, we are also customers for their softwear! So, by following SS, Adobe would piss of both their microstock contributors and their softwear customers at the same time and would have much more to lose. That would be a really stupid move. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with what SS is doing, I will pass on all possible earnings I get from them", because that actually is a sacrifice on the contributors end. One many are not willing to take, especially the ones who depend on their microstock earnings. However, I would not find it too hard to say "I don't agree with what Adobe is doing, I will not purchase their products anymore". (Okay, I am getting their softwear for free for submitting to them, but not all contributors are)
There are decent alternatives out there, many of them even cheaper than Adobe and the only sacrifice I would have to make would be to get used to a different softwear interface. I would rather not have to do it, but it would not be a sacrifice comparable to deliberately accepting a loss in income like it is with closing your SS account.
So, if someone from Adobe is reading this: Think really hard whether you want to piss of your contributors, who are also your customers before you ever consider following in SS's footsteps.
Post by: Josephine on June 05, 2020, 04:07
Post by: Firn on June 05, 2020, 04:08
The coronavirus is hitting the world economy... as well as the Microstock companies. And this is the reaction. The golden times are gone for EVERYBODY not only the Microstockers.
As can be seen from SS's first quarter report, it wasn't really hitting them though.....
They would have done this either way, Corona or not.
Post by: Visualab on June 05, 2020, 04:19
i hate the 1 january reset and it's pretty unfair but ss won't step back till we support them...
u think they want to cut out small fish too indeed big contributors won't be affected that much...talking about video...
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 05, 2020, 04:21
Very much this. Lots of companies are using it as an excuse at the moment. I heard from tech workers who were being laid off from companies who are making out like bandits thanks to the lockdown and remote working etc.The coronavirus is hitting the world economy... as well as the Microstock companies. And this is the reaction. The golden times are gone for EVERYBODY not only the Microstockers.
As can be seen from SS's first quarter report, it wasn't really hitting them though.....
They would have done this either way, Corona or not.
See also SS using the unrest over social inequality sell social media censorship as white knighting. Companies like SS will use anything to their advantage regardless of any ethical concerns.
Post by: Desintegrator on June 05, 2020, 04:56
coronavirus it's completely unrelated to ss new earni g structure...they simply wants to regain market share ...if you look at video side it"s pretty clear...they went subscription to fight back istock and other subscription plan based agency like envato and storyblocks...i can't blame ss for this because the culprits are the artěsts that support those sites selling for peanuts...
i hate the 1 january reset and it's pretty unfair but ss won't step back till we support them...
u think they want to cut out small fish too indeed big contributors won't be affected that much...talking about video...
The Storyblocks footage collection is nothing like Shutterstock's...
What will happen to Blackbox now? Wasn't it their policy that they don't submit to subscription video sites?
Post by: Desintegrator on June 05, 2020, 05:00
...
So, if someone from Adobe is reading this: Think really hard whether you want to piss of your contributors, who are also your customers before you ever consider following in SS's footsteps.
Since Davinci Resolve 16 came out i see quite a big movement on the Internet, that people should change to using that because now it's better than Premiere Pro in almost every area. And cheaper, or even free if you accept some limitations.
Pissing off creatives could add fuel to that trend.
Post by: Rage on June 05, 2020, 06:02
Very strongly worded
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: cobalt on June 05, 2020, 06:29
Many contributors are praising Adobe. What about if Adobe just follows SS?Unfortunately, even at this level and at this time when Adobe are considered more fair to contributors, the income I get from them is not enough to compensate for SS loses. This is unsustainable business now. It just doesn't matter for me anymore what Adobe does, they are not going to take over SS customers. SS is not shutting down, they screwed contributors,there won't be much customer migration because they are not affected. Maybe some of them will hear about our problems and actually care about it, maybe 10% no more.
In my oppinion this is very likely.
One more thing is very important - Adobe and the others are not ready to take over the leadership in the industry. All these years all these agencies were parasitizing on SS. In a way that contributors produce their content primarily for SS, because SS was their biggest earner, and then they send already made content to other agencies to earn some extra money. Without SS the business was not sustainable. So, we are relying on these parasites now, that is not good position for us at all. They are used to be parasites, they have parasites mentality and it can't be changed easily.
Just imagine for one second SS had decided to insist all content that comes in is exclusive.
How powerful would they have become? They might have dominated the industry like ebay or Amazon.
But...they didn‘t...and why...because you have to pay a lot more for exclusive content.
Gettyimages always knew how powerful exclusive content is, which is why they always signed on creatives and everything sent to them under their house contracts must be exclusive.
They do add content from over 200 partners to offer a very beautiful and diversified collection. But their exclusively owned content from top quality producers is at the heart of te company and will always allow them to survive.
Adobe cancelled Fotolias exclusive program, but from what I hear many former exclusives are still doing well.
So complaining that producers did not leave their content exclusively on SS, while SS wasn‘t interested in paying them a fair exclusive content price makes no sense.
Post by: Visualab on June 05, 2020, 09:45
put together istock storyblocks and envato,and think about how low are they price and do your math. .coronavirus it's completely unrelated to ss new earni g structure...they simply wants to regain market share ...if you look at video side it"s pretty clear...they went subscription to fight back istock and other subscription plan based agency like envato and storyblocks...i can't blame ss for this because the culprits are the artěsts that support those sites selling for peanuts...
i hate the 1 january reset and it's pretty unfair but ss won't step back till we support them...
u think they want to cut out small fish too indeed big contributors won't be affected that much...talking about video...
The Storyblocks footage collection is nothing like Shutterstock's...
What will happen to Blackbox now? Wasn't it their policy that they don't submit to subscription video sites?
pond5 adobe will follow because they will lose market share...
business has nothing to do with being good bad or greed,it's all about make money,they don't care if we lose money...
Post by: Lizard on June 05, 2020, 10:09
Post by: Ukko on June 05, 2020, 13:06
Link to Original work (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-image-representation-of-greed-that-a-company-has-for-money-and-employees-response-to-current-1748302739.jpg)
Post by: mj007 on June 05, 2020, 13:12
Post by: miketravels on June 05, 2020, 15:06
Just wanted to drop in and say how much I appreciate this vector image, which got approved. I especially love keywords like 0.10, 0.1c, fuck you, greed and insulting, lol... :DThat's pretty awesome. So funny it got approved.
Link to Original work (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-image-representation-of-greed-that-a-company-has-for-money-and-employees-response-to-current-1748302739.jpg)
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Post by: DallasP on June 05, 2020, 15:22
Very much this. Lots of companies are using it as an excuse at the moment. I heard from tech workers who were being laid off from companies who are making out like bandits thanks to the lockdown and remote working etc.The coronavirus is hitting the world economy... as well as the Microstock companies. And this is the reaction. The golden times are gone for EVERYBODY not only the Microstockers.
As can be seen from SS's first quarter report, it wasn't really hitting them though.....
They would have done this either way, Corona or not.
See also SS using the unrest over social inequality sell social media censorship as white knighting. Companies like SS will use anything to their advantage regardless of any ethical concerns.
A lot of companies who's work could be done remotely laid people off or decreased hours JUST so that they could take advantage of the free business loans and such. Not just tech.
Post by: DallasP on June 05, 2020, 15:24
No one's going to like this.....but what about being paid in SS Wall Street Stock and no 10 cents sh*t. Now I know a lot of you are saying what a stupid idea and yes it is but you must admit it is original...now you can use your bad words at me...
At least if you buy a share you get a buck out of it. Takes ... what, an hour to make $36 in many places. lol.
(please don't buy SS shares, it was a joke.)
Post by: mj007 on June 05, 2020, 15:30
Post by: DallasP on June 05, 2020, 15:54
But what if they went back to the old pay system. Would you take SS Wall Street stock as payment ?
No, Even with the buck and a half dividend it's way overpriced and already rides total market cap for the industry (low growth potential). I'd buy it for $10.
MAYBE $15 but, definitely not where it's at.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 05, 2020, 16:29
No one's going to like this.....but what about being paid in SS Wall Street Stock and no 10 cents sh*t. Now I know a lot of you are saying what a stupid idea and yes it is but you must admit it is original...now you can use your bad words at me...
Maybe better that ten cents deal... who knows...
Post by: theendup on June 05, 2020, 17:42
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/?ref=share (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/?ref=share)
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 05, 2020, 17:44
Just wanted to drop in and say how much I appreciate this vector image, which got approved. I especially love keywords like 0.10, 0.1c, fuck you, greed and insulting, lol... :D
Link to Original work (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
Anyone on twitter can retweet this or make up their own to spread the love far and wide
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268618550580674566 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268618550580674566)
Don't forget the #BoycottShutterstock hashtag :)
Post by: DigitalPro on June 05, 2020, 18:05
Sorry Shutterstock, my pictures can not be valued at 0.10 cents. I value my efforts in creating stock images that sell. Therefore you are not qualified to have my High Quality work on your platform. Creative contributors with High Quality works will all leave you. Soon you will stay with the piles of crappy mediocre mobile photos of unskilled first timers amateurs and the millions of identical marijuana and other drugs shots. That is what you deserve. If you are asking if I can sell my photos at better prices. The answer is yes, and this is what I am doing by the way. So long Shutterstock. Your descent has just started.
Post by: DigitalPro on June 05, 2020, 18:11
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 05, 2020, 18:16
But what if they went back to the old pay system. Would you take SS Wall Street stock as payment ?
No
Post by: PhotoBomb on June 05, 2020, 18:29
I just would like to ask: Has anybody seen Mat from AS lately?
Not Surprised - they aren't going to jump into the middle of this fray.
They'll wait and see how it plays out before they react in any way.
Post by: DallasP on June 05, 2020, 19:16
But what if they went back to the old pay system. Would you take SS Wall Street stock as payment ?
Let's mental math your question, since you're stuck on it ... at the 10 cent rate it would take 400 subscription sales to buy a SINGLE share of Shutterstock. Which would net you the 1.60whatevercent dividend if owned for an entire year.
Or sold, your 40 dollars. Seeing as how the stock is worth closer to 12 dollars (or as low as $5 actual book value)— and it were an option. I'd probably do it for 100 sales IF they weren't diluting shares already.
I'm glad that you're interested in stocks and stuff, I really am but, Wall Street is mostly a place where people lose money ... so it's important to use your brain. They're already the largest image supplier, which means they've already nearly saturated the market to it's upmost potential. So you have to rule them out as a growth stock. As a value stock you're looking at ... idk 18 years for your $36 back in dividends. Since there's low growth opportunity, don't expect increased dividends ... and since they're already cutting costs to squeeze the last pennies of earnings out of their revenues, and giving them to shareholders to artificially boost their share price anyway, my guess is that they're hoping to be acquired or they're going to ride out that 300m as long as they can.
Buy it when the price is less than the cash-debt. Not a cent more. It's a crap company and a crap stock.
Edit: (Cash - minus - debt) divided by outstanding shares. There's software to do that for you but, I don't know if it was clear. You can quickly do it in your head or with a pencil and paper if you don't have access.
Second Edit: NOT the reported book value — since their only true assets are servers and servers have a lifespan of ... meh 10 years give or take. They are sold for about half their book. Tech companies are difficult.
Third Edit: and to do that, they'd have to dilute the shares ... or someone would have to be willing to sell theirs for that $40. Math dude ... math.
Post by: DallasP on June 05, 2020, 19:36
I just would like to ask: Has anybody seen Mat from AS lately?
I keep hoping they'll pop in with an exclusivity option. Uploading and everything is just SO fricken easy at AS. I'd probably track down my random crap portfolios to do it. lol.
Post by: charged on June 05, 2020, 20:20
I'm glad that you're interested in stocks and stuff, I really am but, Wall Street is mostly a place where people lose money
Not necessarily true, and in fact most likely quite incorrect most of the time. Anyone that have bought almost any US equity since mid March when the market hit the bottom would have made a killing. Depending on the stock, such as airlines or cruise-lines, they could have double or tripled their money. The Nasdaq is already back to all time highs. Most of the big tech stocks are all at all time highs. A total market fund such as VTI will over the decades return on average 10% per year. The fact you need not lift a finger to get 10% blended back is incredible. My own portfolio is up 61% year to date. Anyway, this is quite off topic, but wealth can and should be built in the stock market, by dollar cost averaging into a total market fund, such as VTI.
Post by: rene on June 07, 2020, 07:34
Surprise, I haven't found any topics related to new SS earning structure.
Post by: KevinM on June 07, 2020, 10:28
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1686048705011055/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1686048705011055/)
Post by: Desintegrator on June 07, 2020, 10:33
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide: ...
Stay with the first one! In Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide they've banned posts that are openly critical about SS or promote protest.
Post by: Mantis on June 07, 2020, 10:48
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide: ...
Stay with the first one! In Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide they've banned posts that are openly critical about SS or promote protest.
Is that a SS managed group?
Post by: Desintegrator on June 07, 2020, 10:59
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide: ...
Stay with the first one! In Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide they've banned posts that are openly critical about SS or promote protest.
Is that a SS managed group?
Not sure.. sometimes it almost seems to be. But maybe just the owner is aiming to get SS refferals, so doesn't want to defame SS
Post by: Rage on June 07, 2020, 23:22
I was curious to see what graphic designers thought about all this so I googled for top GD forums and took a look.Maybe you could share some of these GD forum links and we all can start spreading the word there also. Politely and firmly
Surprise, I haven't found any topics related to new SS earning structure.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: pics2 on June 08, 2020, 05:52
Post by: Artist on June 08, 2020, 06:34
There was an idiot and then shutterstock finds and challenges him.
And now you all can see they are now pioneer in it.
Post by: SID on June 08, 2020, 06:43
Then I deactivated all my files.
For example, I have some very good selling unique pictures in my portfolio.
These pictures are not really copyable. They are standard images for their niche worldwide.
I deactivated my portfolio on Wednesday, June 3rd at Shutterstock.
These pictures are currently only available for licensing from AS.
Funnily enough, since Thursday I see a relatively strong increase in sales of these pictures at AS.
Well, there are always fluctuations.
If the sales of these pictures will increase permanently at AS will be interesting to see.
In my opinion, however, these special files are an important aspect of deactivation.
Deactivated standard pictures, of which I also have a lot, do not weigh that much.
But the unique files can hardly be replaced.
This also hurts Shutterstock although there are not that many files...
I will leave my files deactivated for a few months at most, but if nothing significant changes at Shutterstock, I will delete my account.
Don't let Shutterstock take away the fun of being creative.
There are always other ways to go.
Our creativity is our real capital.
Where this creativity can be bought, soon the standard-files buyers will also show up.
Post by: rene on June 08, 2020, 07:15
https://www.ucreative.com/resources/top-5-graphic-design-forums/ (https://www.ucreative.com/resources/top-5-graphic-design-forums/)I was curious to see what graphic designers thought about all this so I googled for top GD forums and took a look.Maybe you could share some of these GD forum links and we all can start spreading the word there also. Politely and firmly
Surprise, I haven't found any topics related to new SS earning structure.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
But as I am not a part of graphic designers community I don't know a value of this list.
Post by: Rage on June 08, 2020, 10:55
Surprisingly seems pretty biased, have put in a comment to clear the air, would request that others drop them a comment as well. Maybe we can get an edited version thats more truthful
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 08, 2020, 12:58
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/08/is-this-the-end-of-microstock-photography/
Surprisingly seems pretty biased, have put in a comment to clear the air, would request that others drop them a comment as well. Maybe we can get an edited version thats more truthful
done
And I tweeted about the article earlier too
Post by: disorderly on June 08, 2020, 13:28
None of us could know what the changes meant until they were put into place. From my reading, those of us at higher levels might have expected a big hit on January 1st but to be okay until them. Turns out we're not okay, although how bad things will get in January is still an open question. I'm seeing a 30% cut in royalties right now; what it'll be next year is anybody's guess. And that assumes they don't adjust the numbers to make things even worse. I wouldn't put it past them.
Post by: Pixart on June 08, 2020, 14:05
At the end of the quarter SS reported earnings and $300M in the bank resulting in dividend payout of .17 per share.
- I don't know how to find how many shares there are though! Anyone know the number of shares in SS? Multiply the shares by .17 and we know how much they paid ind dividends. Then we will know what they currently have for cash.
When the first quarter results were stated, the effects of the pandemic had barely been felt. There wasn't much of a shift in their earnings. Really, a much higher impact should be reported in the 2nd quarter as we are still very much in recovery.
Edited to add: Pandemic in America started mid-March. Businesses that cancelled subscriptions wouldn't even be evident in first quarter earnings report! This will be a bad quarter.
Note - they will report earnings again at the end of this month, they surely had less income but it is also offset by lower royalties.
Content is starting to disappear, but what is happening to the content supply chain? Can we see an effect yet on the numbers of new uploads? I'm not sure how many days uploads were in pending at end of May, are they still working through the system.
I like the movement to suspend accounts on June 15, but WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE OUR CONTENT DISABLED AT MONTH END WHEN THEY REPORT THEIR NUMBERS TO SHAREHOLDERS. It would be the first time the shareholders would see diminishing assets.
Post by: dirkr on June 08, 2020, 14:35
- I don't know how to find how many shares there are though! Anyone know the number of shares in SS? Multiply the shares by .17 and we know how much they paid ind dividends. Then we will know what they currently have for cash.
See here:
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/sstk (https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/sstk)
Around 36 million shares, so paying that dividend cost them roughly 6 million.
Post by: BigLeague on June 09, 2020, 07:54
SS play the ethical and supportive tune instead of the corporate cut it to the bone tune that nobody will win in the end. If you have great marketing people, companies will buy into it and support someone doing something ethical.
Sometimes human behaviour just disappoints me again and again, when it needn't be like that. Corporate greed is at the core of many problems in the world.
Post by: Rage on June 09, 2020, 08:00
More people covering the SS debacle
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Pixart on June 09, 2020, 12:38
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm (https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm)
Post by: Jade-Smithy on June 09, 2020, 22:05
Creative professionals at one time made a living on stock photography/art. it has gone from full income to part-time and now it’s just a hobby with Shutterstock
It is clear that Shutterstock is now crap! But now I have to sell 4 times and much as I did last month to make the same income.
The big question is WHY would anyone upload one more image or video or artwork to Shutterstock. I shudder at the thought now! Just so these pigs can take advantage of creative people's hard work. Boycotting the site is the only option they giving creatives. They are not the only game in town. Truthfully I think there are so many other ways to an income online. I have started taking down all my art from Shutterstock and closing my account.
I hope creative and designers stop allowing these jerks to treat creatives like slaves.
Post by: cathyslife on June 09, 2020, 23:27
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide: ...
Stay with the first one! In Shutterstock Contributors Worldwide they've banned posts that are openly critical about SS or promote protest.
Is that a SS managed group?
No, a contributor started it.
Post by: cathyslife on June 09, 2020, 23:29
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 10, 2020, 00:40
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
...
This is the group that Jake Sorenson started. He'd asked me to help with moderation, which I have been.
This evening I removed myself as moderator when I saw (after another member complained about it) that the "Brand Ambasador" for Freepik Antonio Gravante had joined the group and been made an admin by Jake this morning.
I want nothing to do with Freepik - my concern is that somehow they are hoping to benefit from all this work leaving Shutterstock.
Jake is suggested that no one else was volunteering and Antonio did, so it's all good...
If you have an opinion, now'd be a great time to voice it. I think this will split the group
Post by: cathyslife on June 10, 2020, 01:39
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
...
This is the group that Jake Sorenson started. He'd asked me to help with moderation, which I have been.
This evening I removed myself as moderator when I saw (after another member complained about it) that the "Brand Ambasador" for Freepik Antonio Gravante had joined the group and been made an admin by Jake this morning.
I want nothing to do with Freepik - my concern is that somehow they are hoping to benefit from all this work leaving Shutterstock.
Jake is suggested that no one else was volunteering and Antonio did, so it's all good...
If you have an opinion, now'd be a great time to voice it. I think this will split the group
I expressed my disappointment and left the group. I wasn’t too happy with the childish games people just kept suggesting to do to SS anyway. And the ridiculous graphics some are coming up with. Oh well. I’m done with SS. I’ll still do some tweeting for a little while.
Post by: Mimi the Cat on June 10, 2020, 02:47
Any takers?
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm (https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm)
shitterstocks reply to one negative employee
"Thanks for the feedback. We’re confident that we have a strong strategy in place and we’re already seeing great results driven by new offerings such as Asset Assurance and by delivering creative solutions to support our customers in new ways as their needs are evolving. But we’re just getting started -- our customers can look forward to more offerings coming this year!"
The asshats have more plans to screw the contributors? >:(
and I loved this one
"Cons
Exists in a state of perpetual confusion - makes money despite itself not because of
Advice to Management
Go to business school and learn the basics"
Sounds about right :D
Post by: miketravels on June 10, 2020, 02:49
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/amp/news/are-your-photographs-worth-10-cents-shutterstock-seems-to-think-soThat's good. Digital Camera World are a pretty big publisher. Hopefully more big news or photography sites will do the same.
More people covering the SS debacle
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Post by: VisitorQ on June 10, 2020, 02:55
Post by: Astrantia on June 10, 2020, 02:59
Just wanted to drop in and say how much I appreciate this vector image, which got approved. I especially love keywords like 0.10, 0.1c, fuck you, greed and insulting, lol... :D
Link to Original work (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/image-representation-greed-that-company-has-1748302739)
(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-image-representation-of-greed-that-a-company-has-for-money-and-employees-response-to-current-1748302739.jpg)
Gorgeous!!!
I tweeted it......
Post by: Mimi the Cat on June 10, 2020, 03:02
A couple Facebook groups to join to link up with folks dedicated to pushing back on the Shutterstock commission cut. We're stronger unified.
Stock Submitter Coalition: https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
...
This is the group that Jake Sorenson started. He'd asked me to help with moderation, which I have been.
This evening I removed myself as moderator when I saw (after another member complained about it) that the "Brand Ambasador" for Freepik Antonio Gravante had joined the group and been made an admin by Jake this morning.
I want nothing to do with Freepik - my concern is that somehow they are hoping to benefit from all this work leaving Shutterstock.
Jake is suggested that no one else was volunteering and Antonio did, so it's all good...
If you have an opinion, now'd be a great time to voice it. I think this will split the group
Frying pans and fire come to mind freepik is a toxic brand to anyone trying to make money from stock sales.
Its not that this FB group will achieve anything anyway other than whine and throw insults about ss and eachother
Post by: Rage on June 11, 2020, 03:07
More coverage, a more accurate picture this time
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: pics2 on June 11, 2020, 03:50
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 11, 2020, 06:13
It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.All the level 5/6 people I know have taken a BIG hit in income this month as well as RPD, including me.
Post by: pics2 on June 11, 2020, 09:07
I know, the same here. Even level 6 doesn't mean you are a big producer, I'm not. I just have few information which makes me conclude that big producers are not hit that much. Without big producers deactivating portfolios nothing can be accomplished.It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.All the level 5/6 people I know have taken a BIG hit in income this month as well as RPD, including me.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 11, 2020, 10:15
It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.
I think the problem contributors face if they take that attitude - that essentially, we've already agreed we're cheap, it's only a matter of just how cheap - is that buyers aren't going to purchase 3-4 times the number of images just because Shutterstock cut our royalties. Their needs are pretty much unchanged.
If the volume won't go up (or up enough) income will fall even for the factory producers (who also are the ones with expenses to cover, unlike some of the smaller contributors).
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 11, 2020, 10:49
The really big factories for vectors with hundreds of thousands of images are producing utter, utter garbage.
I mean not good even good enough for "good enough", so I think it would be a good idea to target the top vector people specifically for action (by downloads or quality, not quantity). A smaller pool of people producing high value content.
Post by: alexandersr on June 11, 2020, 10:55
Post by: zsooofija on June 11, 2020, 11:12
Please join Stock Submitter Coalition (if you haven't already).
There are many things we can do and together we are stronger.
www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/ (http://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/)
Post by: pics2 on June 11, 2020, 12:23
But, we are not cheap, that's the point. Although most of sales were 38 cents thousands of people got rich in microstock. So we are not cheap. I just find it hypocritical, or what the English word is, to base the boycott campaign on slogan 10c is humiliating. When the real reason is - I don't won't to work for 50% less money.It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.
I think the problem contributors face if they take that attitude - that essentially, we've already agreed we're cheap, it's only a matter of just how cheap - is that buyers aren't going to purchase 3-4 times the number of images just because Shutterstock cut our royalties. Their needs are pretty much unchanged.
If the volume won't go up (or up enough) income will fall even for the factory producers (who also are the ones with expenses to cover, unlike some of the smaller contributors).
Post by: alexandersr on June 11, 2020, 12:49
Look. https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12997-meanwhile-over-at-shutterstock/
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 11, 2020, 13:21
But, we are not cheap, that's the point. Although most of sales were 38 cents thousands of people got rich in microstock. So we are not cheap. I just find it hypocritical, or what the English word is, to base the boycott campaign on slogan 10c is humiliating. When the real reason is - I don't won't to work for 50% less money.It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.
I think the problem contributors face if they take that attitude - that essentially, we've already agreed we're cheap, it's only a matter of just how cheap - is that buyers aren't going to purchase 3-4 times the number of images just because Shutterstock cut our royalties. Their needs are pretty much unchanged.
If the volume won't go up (or up enough) income will fall even for the factory producers (who also are the ones with expenses to cover, unlike some of the smaller contributors).
I've been trying all sorts of ways of talking about this to draw attention to it. An essay won't grab anyone's attention; too much detail and people stop reading. I liked somone's comment on an early tweet that included an image "That image is worth so much more than 10˘" I think using 10˘, even when some royalties are 12˘ or 14˘ has more impact.
I haven't used humiliating (others have, but they've also used a bunch of language I won't as I think it's counter productive)
I also think it's helpful to talk about our royalty cuts funding a 17˘/share dividend this month. It's more complicated than that, but it helps get the point across about who's helped and who's hurt by these changes. I also like the idea of using their Empire State Building offices (even though I'm sure most are working from home at the moment) because it's evocative too - big execs living high on the hog (Stan Pavlovsky's $4+million salary) sticking it to the small business contributors.
Anyone who has suggestions for other ways to get our point across, feel free to find me on twitter (@joannsnover), pm me here or in the Stock Submitter's Coalition on Facebook. Note that I will not use anything with slave, slavery, any third reich images or language, or any swearing (however much Shutterstock deserves it). This needs to be business-friendly.
Post by: gnirtS on June 11, 2020, 15:13
It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much.
They're going to get hit hard just like the others. For most people selling images, the majority of sales are subs so moving from 0.38 down to an average of 0.2 or 0.12 is going to lose a chunk of money no matter how big you are.
The slight increases for the rarely sold other licences are unlikely to cover the huge drop from subs.
Post by: Wine_wine on June 12, 2020, 02:01
Post by: Minsc on June 12, 2020, 02:11
It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.
It's a 30-40% drop for level 6 contributors. My original math from before the start day was way off. What SS doing is abhorrent.
Post by: reisegraf on June 12, 2020, 06:03
But my problem is, if I would boycott SS, I would have to do the same with 123rf (-.47/DL), Bigstock for sure (-.28/DL) and iStock (-.43/DL) - all low paying agencies...
And I would then cut 66%! of my total income! You most probably ask yourself why I still work with Bigstock? I just sell totally different pics there, they sell images what I never sold with others, I don’t know why, but it's additional income for me.
Btw, I'm selling about 600 images/month. With SS I was on -.38 for the lowest royalty rate.
How about you, how are you proceeding, and did you compare your sales these days?
Greeez, Martin
Post by: NeonRobot on June 12, 2020, 07:38
Post by: BigLeague on June 12, 2020, 07:59
Where on your SS account does it tell you what level your at, and how close you are to the next level. Or do you really have to add up each months total sales?
Post by: disorderly on June 12, 2020, 08:13
Where on your SS account does it tell you what level your at, and how close you are to the next level. Or do you really have to add up each months total sales?
You'll have to add up the individual months' total downloads. Go to Earnings -> Earnings Summary and pull each month's download count and earnings (to calculate your RPD). I made a little spreadsheet to make comparisons easier. Make note of your prior months total downloads so you can just check and add the current month and see how you're progressing toward the next level.
Post by: BigLeague on June 12, 2020, 08:14
Where on your SS account does it tell you what level your at, and how close you are to the next level. Or do you really have to add up each months total sales?
You'll have to add up the individual months' total downloads. Go to Earnings -> Earnings Summary and pull each month's download count and earnings (to calculate your RPD). I made a little spreadsheet to make comparisons easier. Make note of your prior months total downloads so you can just check and add the current month and see how you're progressing toward the next level.
Oh well, thanks Dis...
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 12, 2020, 08:17
But, we are not cheap, that's the point. Although most of sales were 38 cents thousands of people got rich in microstock. So we are not cheap. I just find it hypocritical, or what the English word is, to base the boycott campaign on slogan 10c is humiliating. When the real reason is - I don't won't to work for 50% less money.It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much. They have strong portfolios (should we use stock market term all weather portfolio) and it is also possible that SS is fine tuning search engine to drive more traffic to them, so they would not leave. All of them are now "shocked" and "insulted" and "humiliated" with 10 cent sales, but in reality all they (and all of us, lets face it) only care about overall income, not RPD. Why I think that? Pure logic - 38cents was already so low it could also be called insulting and humiliating. All microstock concept is based on that. So, they won't care is it 10 or 5 or 1 cent as long as the overall income is satisfying. SS will take care that income doesn't drop that drastically, and everything will be the way it used to be. and the small contributors? Who cares about them.
I think the problem contributors face if they take that attitude - that essentially, we've already agreed we're cheap, it's only a matter of just how cheap - is that buyers aren't going to purchase 3-4 times the number of images just because Shutterstock cut our royalties. Their needs are pretty much unchanged.
If the volume won't go up (or up enough) income will fall even for the factory producers (who also are the ones with expenses to cover, unlike some of the smaller contributors).
I've been trying all sorts of ways of talking about this to draw attention to it. An essay won't grab anyone's attention; too much detail and people stop reading. I liked somone's comment on an early tweet that included an image "That image is worth so much more than 10˘" I think using 10˘, even when some royalties are 12˘ or 14˘ has more impact.
I haven't used humiliating (others have, but they've also used a bunch of language I won't as I think it's counter productive)
I also think it's helpful to talk about our royalty cuts funding a 17˘/share dividend this month. It's more complicated than that, but it helps get the point across about who's helped and who's hurt by these changes. I also like the idea of using their Empire State Building offices (even though I'm sure most are working from home at the moment) because it's evocative too - big execs living high on the hog (Stan Pavlovsky's $4+million salary) sticking it to the small business contributors.
Anyone who has suggestions for other ways to get our point across, feel free to find me on twitter (@joannsnover), pm me here or in the Stock Submitter's Coalition on Facebook. Note that I will not use anything with slave, slavery, any third reich images or language, or any swearing (however much Shutterstock deserves it). This needs to be business-friendly.
I agree "humiliating" isn't a very useful lens to use for publicising this. For native speakers it also sounds entitled and doesn't garner a lot of sympathy IMHO
But I also don't think the 10c slogan is great social media etc. People outside of the business don't understand whether 10c is good or bad. Lots of people will think of this like netflix of spotify or something, where artists are supposed to make up money from huge volume from an endless supply of consumers.
They don't know this is business to business and also high production value for a lot of us.
The best frame I think is that SS has taken the opportunity to cut their artists payments by a huge percentage in the middle of a pandemic while they have massive cash reserves and profits. Which is after all the truth and the simplest message for outsiders. IMHO there is no better message than that of the single mother posted in another thread. If we replied to every SS twitter or facebook post with:
"I'm a single mother. I lost 2/3 of my income. My son and I will literally have nothing to eat." quote from Shutterstock artist after they cut their income in the middle of the pandemic
there would be no better way of getting buyers on board.
They actually make it quite easy when their posts are almost always so hypocritical and opportunistic.
When they post images celebrating mothers, post:
"What about all the single mothers who can't support their families thanks to your pay cut for your artists?"
Same with all the other identity politics stuff they are trying co-op while their management "likes" hate tweets nonstop (or at least did until we discovered them). Point out the hypocrisy of celebrating diversity while slashing the income of many BAME artist (I think this is acceptable in this specific case as I would see it as pushing back on SS co-opting rather than co-opting ourselves).
The "your artists" frame is also important IMHO. Corporations have been trying make out they have no responsibility to their workers for a long time by passing everyone off as a gig economy cog. Yeah time to push back on that too. You want to put videos all over the internet with grinning hipsters claiming they are SS artists like they are part of a big family? Well own it.
Post by: Shelma1 on June 12, 2020, 08:36
The best frame I think is that SS has taken the opportunity to cut their artists payments by a huge percentage in the middle of a pandemic while they have massive cash reserves and profits. Which is after all the truth and the simplest message for outsiders. IMHO opinion there is no better message than that of the single mother posted in another thread. If we replied to every SS twitter or facebook post with:
"I'm a single mother. I lost 2/3 of my income. My son and I will literally have nothing to eat." quote from Shutterstock artist after they cut their income in the middle of the pandemic
When they post images celebrating mothers, post:
"What about all the single mothers who can't support their families thanks to your pay cut for your artists?"
This.
Post by: Uncle Pete on June 12, 2020, 09:39
It looks like the earnings of the big players will not drop that much.
They're going to get hit hard just like the others. For most people selling images, the majority of sales are subs so moving from 0.38 down to an average of 0.2 or 0.12 is going to lose a chunk of money no matter how big you are.
The slight increases for the rarely sold other licences are unlikely to cover the huge drop from subs.
Sorry Richard, not so, the rarely sold licenses have dropped in half for me as well. Currently everything is about 50%, I'll give it a month and see what that number turns out to be, and after two months again, a longer period bit of observing. I was at 60% drop, but some higher subs came in.
Doesn't matter if it turns out to be 30% less, it's still less and the 10-12-14˘ subs are an insult on top of the already under rewarded commissions.
Post by: stockmarketer on June 12, 2020, 09:45
Still not looking forward to Jan 2021. The reset is an insult and needs to be changed.
Post by: Uncle Pete on June 12, 2020, 09:55
I was bracing for the worst when I saw the announcement, but so far, my June is looking better than June 2019. Yes, the .10 subs are awful, but I'm also seeing a high number of subs well over the usual .38 -- many over 1.00. Video sales got off to a slow start, but now they're coming in at a nice pace. And the dreaded 1.50 Clip Pack commissions are nowhere to be seen. I'm seeing quite a few Clip Pack sales over 20.00 which rarely happened prior to the change. So a mixed bag overall, but all in all it appears to be a net positive for my port. Everyone's mileage will vary, of course.
Still not looking forward to Jan 2021. The reset is an insult and needs to be changed.
I should have included, I have NO video on SS. I went exclusive on P5 when the $1.25 video downloads started.
Also the months of 2020 include no ELs which can throw off numbers in a big way. Mine as listed are Subs, OD and SO.
Maybe your images will hold up better against the cuts. I know mine are pretty "stock". ;)
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 12, 2020, 11:05
... But my problem is, if I would boycott SS, I would have to do the same with...
I don't think that's the right way to look at this. It isn't just about some cents/download absolute number and above you stay, below you go.
If you left 123rf because their sales were rubbish, that'd be a fine reason. Or if you left some other agency because they wouldn't let you opt out of partnerships and some of those were a bad deal, that'd also be a fine reason.
The reason to consider boycotting Shutterstock is that they suddenly and drastically changed the portion of the buyers' money they keep and reduced the share you get. (For video producers, I think the big hit will come in January when everyone goes back to the basic level and their percentages drop).
Not only is that cutting into your income now, it's increasing the chances other agencies will follow suit, reducing your income everywhere.
Shutterstock's annual pay-up-front subscription, a new and even more heavily discounted subscription, reduced the theoretical minimum cost for the buyer to 22 cents an image. To enable this price cut they needed to do something about royalties or risk loosing up to $118 per month on each 750/month subscription. Looking at all the 10˘ downloads in people's royalty charts, I'd say those are popular options.
If those become the price point to compete with, other agencies will eventually be tempted to compete on price - if we don't hurt Shutterstock with no new uploads and portfolios leaving.
At the very least, stop uploading and send your new work elsewhere while you convince yourself that it is not in your longterm interest to just take whatever shrinking piece of the pie Shutterstock decides to let you have.
Post by: chrisbradshaw on June 12, 2020, 12:32
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 12, 2020, 13:35
I had seen a link to a counter tool that was updating the total image count at Shutterstock during this movement, but I can't find it again. Is anyone tracking the changes to their overall image count? I've been doing it sporadically for about a week and it's only decreased by a little over a million so far (out of 324 million).
Was it this one?
http://shuttercounter.ddns.net/ (http://shuttercounter.ddns.net/)
There's also a google sheet which automatically updates and has charts (click at the bottom)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/edit?usp=sharing)
Post by: reisegraf on June 13, 2020, 04:03
... But my problem is, if I would boycott SS, I would have to do the same with...
I don't think that's the right way to look at this. It isn't just about some cents/download absolute number and above you stay, below you go.
If you left 123rf because their sales were rubbish, that'd be a fine reason. Or if you left some other agency because they wouldn't let you opt out of partnerships and some of those were a bad deal, that'd also be a fine reason.
The reason to consider boycotting Shutterstock is that they suddenly and drastically changed the portion of the buyers' money they keep and reduced the share you get. (For video producers, I think the big hit will come in January when everyone goes back to the basic level and their percentages drop).
Not only is that cutting into your income now, it's increasing the chances other agencies will follow suit, reducing your income everywhere.
Shutterstock's annual pay-up-front subscription, a new and even more heavily discounted subscription, reduced the theoretical minimum cost for the buyer to 22 cents an image. To enable this price cut they needed to do something about royalties or risk loosing up to $118 per month on each 750/month subscription. Looking at all the 10˘ downloads in people's royalty charts, I'd say those are popular options.
If those become the price point to compete with, other agencies will eventually be tempted to compete on price - if we don't hurt Shutterstock with no new uploads and portfolios leaving.
At the very least, stop uploading and send your new work elsewhere while you convince yourself that it is not in your longterm interest to just take whatever shrinking piece of the pie Shutterstock decides to let you have.
thanks a lot jo ann for your valuable feedback!
...and yes, I'm definitely thinking about it and at the end of the month I'll decide how to proceed...
Post by: Mir on June 13, 2020, 06:43
Not to mention the many similar images, just one example is oak logo in fresh content ::)
Post by: miketravels on June 15, 2020, 03:03
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Post by: m on June 15, 2020, 05:55
Any takers?
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm (https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htm)
It seems like shutterstock cares about what goes on on glassdoor. lot of honest reviews from submitters would be a good idea.
Post by: NeonRobot on June 17, 2020, 01:18
Post by: YadaYadaYada on June 18, 2020, 16:09
Amazing, they are going from bad to worse and seem to be loving it!
Hard to be worse than iStock but Shutter is trying. This is the worst but not the lowest paying. How does anybody stay with either of them?
Post by: duns123 on April 18, 2021, 06:49
Long time lurker, first time poster.
While I am as PISSED at everyone else at how this came across, I'm surprised that no one is talking about the real enemy.
For years, photographers have been dumping all kinds of microstock onto free sites like Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay all either to stroke their gigantic egos or to enter the lottery that someone will miraculously come across their portfolio and hire them for a professional gig (which happens 0.000001% of the time).
I know a ton of small business owners. NO ONE goes to Shutterstock or Adobe or iStock anymore. They all go to these sites and download "free images".
Adding insult to injury, Canva has bought up Pixabay and Pexels and is now SELLING the images those photographers gave them for FREE. Contributors don't get 10 cents, they get jack sh*t.
Again, I'm not absolving Shutterstock (or iStock before it) from blame here nor making apologies for them. But if you know someone who's contributing to one of those free sites, tell them to STOP. They are taking money out of our pockets just as bad as Shutterstock is, maybe worse.
This is the problem but users like small businesses of images MUST learn and realise that photos often cost money for locations, models, and equipment. After all, how would such users like it if people expected to get THEiR product or service they were trying to promote for FREE?
These photographers must be either rich enough (wealthy mummy or daddy) to give some of their photos away or very naive to think the internet will get them paid gigs because it won't. As soon as people find out their work is being offered for free on the net, they may get paid little if anything for those gigs.
Post by: Pacesetter on April 18, 2021, 07:43
Post by: Mimi the Cat on April 18, 2021, 22:49
I wonder who's gonna be iStock v3.0?
Fast forward to April 2021 and Adobe have just thrown their hat in the ring for that title ;D
Post by: Pauws99 on April 19, 2021, 00:52
Why do you say that?I wonder who's gonna be iStock v3.0?
Fast forward to April 2021 and Adobe have just thrown their hat in the ring for that title ;D
Post by: Firn on April 19, 2021, 01:55
They are now offering an unlimited subscription plan where customers can download the whole database in a day. (But Adobe 'trusts' those customers to not do that ::) )Why do you say that?I wonder who's gonna be iStock v3.0?
Fast forward to April 2021 and Adobe have just thrown their hat in the ring for that title ;D
Contributors get 33% of the revenue - If a customer downloads 1.000 images in a month, each individual contributor who had an image downloaded with that plan gets 1/30 (since it's calculated per day) of 1/1.000 of 33% of what Adobe charges for a plan. If a customer downloads 1.000.000 images in a month, contributors get 1/30 of 1/1.000.000 of 33%. (Which might be something in the 0.000X$ range. We don't know the prices for these plans, as Adobe keeps them a secret, so we have no starting number to calculate with.)
So, the more a customer downloads with a plan (while paying the same, regardless of whether they download one image or one million images) , the less contributors get, while Adobe always keeps 67% of what the customer paid for the plan.
It's a horrible greedy system where Adobe always comes out with a fixed revenue per sold plan, while contributors get less the more images are downloaded.
Post by: dirkr on April 19, 2021, 02:04
Post by: Mimi the Cat on April 19, 2021, 03:50
Why do you say that?I wonder who's gonna be iStock v3.0?
Fast forward to April 2021 and Adobe have just thrown their hat in the ring for that title ;D
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-announcing-pro-edition-for-creative-cloud-for-teams-and-enterprises/msg563238/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/adobe-stock-announcing-pro-edition-for-creative-cloud-for-teams-and-enterprises/msg563238/?topicseen#new)
Post by: Uncle Pete on November 29, 2021, 17:05
Back to about 5 pages ago when we were talking about earnings....
At the end of the quarter SS reported earnings and $300M in the bank resulting in dividend payout of .17 per share.
- I don't know how to find how many shares there are though! Anyone know the number of shares in SS? Multiply the shares by .17 and we know how much they paid ind dividends. Then we will know what they currently have for cash.
When the first quarter results were stated, the effects of the pandemic had barely been felt. There wasn't much of a shift in their earnings. Really, a much higher impact should be reported in the 2nd quarter as we are still very much in recovery.
Edited to add: Pandemic in America started mid-March. Businesses that cancelled subscriptions wouldn't even be evident in first quarter earnings report! This will be a bad quarter.
Note - they will report earnings again at the end of this month, they surely had less income but it is also offset by lower royalties.
Content is starting to disappear, but what is happening to the content supply chain? Can we see an effect yet on the numbers of new uploads? I'm not sure how many days uploads were in pending at end of May, are they still working through the system.
I like the movement to suspend accounts on June 15, but WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE OUR CONTENT DISABLED AT MONTH END WHEN THEY REPORT THEIR NUMBERS TO SHAREHOLDERS. It would be the first time the shareholders would see diminishing assets.
Cleaning an old laptop over Thanksgiving, I found this: (yes I know old thread, but for a change I'm on topic?)
Microstock sees its first major setback in 6 years and here is why
Posted: 25 Jul 2013 11:56 AM PDT
You might have noticed huge amounts of images being removed from micro subscription sites such as Shutterstock.com, Fotolia.com, Dreamstime.com etc. You might also have noticed that Shutterstock’s stock have dropped more than 12% over the past week. (Link.) Perhaps you have also seen the public statement that GettyImages made about Yuri Arcurs and PeopleImages.com going exclusive.
Yuri Arcurs