Author Topic: Shutterstock, maybe they don't want us there (Read 6384 times)

epixx · « **on:** June 09, 2020, 03:26 »

The reactions to the pay reduction at SS can't have come as a surprise to them, and I've been asking myself the question if they want me/us there at all. Maybe they are simply targeting a type of photographer who can produce very large numbers of photos at a very low price and regardless of quality. Never mind the fact that my own photos are often rejected for... no reason at all sometimes.

If the profits are in huge numbers rather than in good quality, that might be a business concept that works for the owners of SS.

There's a photographer who is defending SS fiercly at the moment, on Twitter and other social media, stockphotofan1. He has apparently been shooting stock since early 2018, so two and a half years, and claims on his Twitter account that "I take photos w no editing.".

Here's his 25,134 stock photos portfolio at SS:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/stockphotofan1?sort=popular

I don't know what the philosophy is behind the photos and the reasons SS has for accepting them while rejecting better quality photos from other photographers, but if this is the future of SS, getting out permanently might be a good idea.

Snow · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2020, 04:18 »

Quote from: epixx on June 09, 2020, 03:26

The reactions to the pay reduction at SS can't have come as a surprise to them, and I've been asking myself the question if they want me/us there at all. Maybe they are simply targeting a type of photographer who can produce very large numbers of photos at a very low price and regardless of quality. Never mind the fact that my own photos are often rejected for... no reason at all sometimes.

If the profits are in huge numbers rather than in good quality, that might be a business concept that works for the owners of SS.

There's a photographer who is defending SS fiercly at the moment, on Twitter and other social media, stockphotofan1. He has apparently been shooting stock since early 2018, so two and a half years, and claims on his Twitter account that "I take photos w no editing.".

Here's his 25,134 stock photos portfolio at SS:
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/stockphotofan1?sort=popular

I don't know what the philosophy is behind the photos and the reasons SS has for accepting them while rejecting better quality photos from other photographers, but if this is the future of SS, getting out permanently might be a good idea.

My thoughts exactly.
Why is that they are so eager to reject images from some of us for no good reason while taking in these kind of images or even stolen images or duplicates from spammers?
Is this friends helping each other out? could be!

I once asked an ex-reviewer if they did these kind of practices and his answer was "sure". I don't have to know any more then that peeps. I was already 99% certain but coming from an ex-reviewer confirmed it 100%.

Keep in mind there are contributors out there who apparently lost touch with reality and think their sales (or karma) will go up by defending agencies and even think they are way above standard with their work and will tell us what to do.
I am always amazed seeing posts from people who have nothing to show for (be it sales or quality) telling others what they should do to be successful in this market. As if they walk this earth blindfolded!

But yes this could be SS strategy. Going forward with the copycat factories, spammers, stealers, snapshooters

Maybe it should be like this. I see far too much high quality or unique images and clips being sold for nothing while other much lower quality is being sold for hundreds if not thousands of dollars in Macrostock.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2020, 04:21 »

That's crazy... SS used to have quality control, many years ago...

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/thick-glass-plastic-barrier-room-bricks-1333258736

(not that my port is stellar... i have my share of crappy shots and some of them even sell. But submitting snapshots constantly... it's crazy that SS doesn't shut this down)

Sometimes i think that they let in all kinds of shots and hundreds of millions of images, because they can sell access to their library to companies who want to train machine vision neural networks. It's just the perfect thing for that. Hundreds of millions of pictures of everything in the world, with keywords and descriptions. Can you imagine anything better to train an AI?

For images that had sales SS also has data about which keywords are the most relevant for the specific image

Snow · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2020, 04:31 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on June 09, 2020, 04:21

That's crazy... SS used to have quality control, many years ago...

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/thick-glass-plastic-barrier-room-bricks-1333258736

Not really as far as I'm concerned and I've been doing this for almost 10 years. I always had issues with them. Maybe a fellow countryman or similar content provider who sees me as their competition, who knows!
All I know is that I had to contact an (ex) admin/reviewer more then a few times to correct these unjustified rejections and they all went online soon after. Mistakes can be made but this is obviously something else.
This not only happens at SS btw but also at AS, especially when it was still Fotolia. I don't know why some people try to find good reason for their unjustified rejections while it could just be a reviewer messing around or trying to eliminate their (or friends) competition.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2020, 04:49 »

Quote from: Snow on June 09, 2020, 04:31

Quote from: Desintegrator on June 09, 2020, 04:21
That's crazy... SS used to have quality control, many years ago...

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/thick-glass-plastic-barrier-room-bricks-1333258736

Not really as far as I'm concerned and I've been doing this for almost 10 years. I always had issues with them. Maybe a fellow countryman or similar content provider who sees me as their competition, who knows!
All I know is that I had to contact an (ex) admin/reviewer more then a few times to correct these unjustified rejections and they all went online soon after. Mistakes can be made but this is obviously something else.
This not only happens at SS btw but also at AS, especially when it was still Fotolia. I don't know why some people try to find good reason for their unjustified rejections while it could just be a reviewer messing around or trying to eliminate their (or friends) competition.

There was a time about 8 years ago... I used to submit batches 50 images with diverse theme and varied quality. Some of the images i considered perfect, some of them ok, and some "lets try it anyways, it may get accepted"
Yet most of the reviews were either accepting all of them, or rejecting all of them.
But back in 2007 it felt like i can actually learn from the rejection reasons.

But in some ways it can be expected... we all experience that sales are much more diluted now. One image today earns much less than 10-15 years ago. That also means that SS can spend less on reviews on a per image basis. Probably reviews are not trained as much as they used to be, and they have much less time to judge an image

Snow · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2020, 04:56 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on June 09, 2020, 04:49

Quote from: Snow on June 09, 2020, 04:31
Quote from: Desintegrator on June 09, 2020, 04:21
That's crazy... SS used to have quality control, many years ago...

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/thick-glass-plastic-barrier-room-bricks-1333258736

Not really as far as I'm concerned and I've been doing this for almost 10 years. I always had issues with them. Maybe a fellow countryman or similar content provider who sees me as their competition, who knows!
All I know is that I had to contact an (ex) admin/reviewer more then a few times to correct these unjustified rejections and they all went online soon after. Mistakes can be made but this is obviously something else.
This not only happens at SS btw but also at AS, especially when it was still Fotolia. I don't know why some people try to find good reason for their unjustified rejections while it could just be a reviewer messing around or trying to eliminate their (or friends) competition.

There was a time about 8 years ago... I used to submit batches 50 images with diverse theme and varied quality. Some of the images i considered perfect, some of them ok, and some "lets try it anyways, it may get accepted"
Yet most of the reviews were either accepting all of them, or rejecting all of them.
But back in 2007 it felt like i can actually learn from the rejection reasons.

But in some ways it can be expected... we all experience that sales are much more diluted now. One image today earns much less than 10-15 years ago. That also means that SS can spend less on reviews on a per image basis. Probably reviews are not trained as much as they used to be, and they have much less time to judge an image

Couldn't agree more mate!

panicAttack · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2020, 05:51 »

lol

but that is what is expected for now on, this is a future of shutterstock.

CommuniCat · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2020, 05:53 »

We all have some crap in our portfolios, but honestly, that's some of the worst "stock photography" I've seen in a very long time. I can't even tell the difference between what could be most popular or most recent. It's just all total crap.

It's obvious that SS needs quality contributors. My guess is that they seriously misjudged the community's reaction and now the genie is out of the bottle they have no idea how to put it back. They have poked the wrong hive of bees.

Despite having access to millions of images and videos and the ability to easily create value with an exclusive content plan, they have just given up by looking for margins where no margins exist. I suspect that they are regretting all of this already.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2020, 06:52 »

Quote from: panicAttack on June 09, 2020, 05:51

lol

but that is what is expected for now on, this is a future of shutterstock.

Rejections have always been inconstant and irregular. There doesn't have to be a motivation or friend or any conspiracy. I figure it's all about being paid per review and lazy reviewers. That and the problem of uploading again is ours, not SS, so we waste time, they pay less.

I can't find any way to defend the new commission plan. If someone does, I'd say they live in an alternate universe.

I also believe now that SS is trying to get rid of people and cherry pick the artists. Why else would they have offered a plan "old rates until January" to some selected people? They want those people and their work. They want them to stay. The rest of us, SS doesn't care if we stay or go. If someone is shooting the same old stock and there are hundreds of thousands of the similar, SS doesn't care. If someone makes distinctive images, of unusual subjects, that's something SS wants to keep.

wds · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2020, 07:40 »

I still don't understand why none of the agencies don't charge more for images that sell well. If an image sells well, it is more desirable by definition. If it's more desirable, charge more for it, like every other product on the planet.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2020, 07:43 »

Quote from: wds on June 09, 2020, 07:40

I still don't understand why none of the agencies don't charge more for images that sell well. If an image sells well, it is more desirable by definition. If it's more desirable, charge more for it, like every other product on the planet.

Doesn't DT do this with levels

wds · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2020, 08:54 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 09, 2020, 07:43

Quote from: wds on June 09, 2020, 07:40
I still don't understand why none of the agencies don't charge more for images that sell well. If an image sells well, it is more desirable by definition. If it's more desirable, charge more for it, like every other product on the planet.
Doesn't DT do this with levels

Not on DT, I don't know

wollwerth · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2020, 09:06 »

If this portfolio is the direction that Shitterstock is going, I definitely don't want to be associated with them.

zsooofija · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2020, 09:07 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 09, 2020, 07:43

Quote from: wds on June 09, 2020, 07:40
I still don't understand why none of the agencies don't charge more for images that sell well. If an image sells well, it is more desirable by definition. If it's more desirable, charge more for it, like every other product on the planet.
Doesn't DT do this with levels

Yes they do exactly that, images have different levels. It sounds fair to me.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #14 on:** June 09, 2020, 09:12 »

Thanks, I knew it was someone.

It really is a great way of doing things. There's so much variety in terms of image quality, rarity and so on. Ensures a decent turnover or images as buyers likely to consider newer images with lower price points vs proven best sellers with higher prices.

So many different directions and models agencies could explore rather than just trying to strangle us to increase profits.

CommuniCat · « **Reply #15 on:** June 09, 2020, 10:27 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 09, 2020, 09:12

Thanks, I knew it was someone.

It really is a great way of doing things. There's so much variety in terms of image quality, rarity and so on. Ensures a decent turnover or images as buyers likely to consider newer images with lower price points vs proven best sellers with higher prices.

So many different directions and models agencies could explore rather than just trying to strangle us to increase profits.

Yes, exactly the point. There are so many ways of packaging the content for buyers - especially if there is some level of exclusivity. Almost all of the value is sitting in the space between how much buyers are currently paying vs how much they would be willing to pay if they knew they could not get it somewhere else for peanuts.

What I know for sure is that there is very little margin sitting is the contributor's commission. Utter buffoons.

MysteryShot · « **Reply #16 on:** June 09, 2020, 11:33 »

...i lost a few brain cells looking at this crooked port

wollwerth · « **Reply #17 on:** June 09, 2020, 11:38 »

Quote from: MysteryShot on June 09, 2020, 11:33

...i lost a few brain cells looking at this crooked port

These are worse than my first submission of 10 images from 2005.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #18 on:** June 09, 2020, 12:28 »

I am going to look like a Troll, but honestly, you are very lost in the comments. Approving an image is a button, approved button. Rejecting is a minimum of double work. Button, reject and button reason for rejection. Double work, slower. A reviewer is wasting more time rejecting than approving images.

New examiners' waste time with various reasons, blur, noise, shake,...... or Title and keywords. In this case it is triple work, button reject more the reason button Title more reason Keywords. With that waste of time you can approve three images faster than approving one and rejecting two.

Simple, they get orders from a number of daily approvals. They keep examining but they are going to reject because they cannot do anything other than reject files. It is your job and must be reviewed in days, not stored pending examination. There are some reviewers who sleep peacefully, leathery skin, others feel more concerned, they put you in rejection, loading error. Because they are sorry to reject. And they hope and want you to upload it again, in case the next examiner has the current daily approval quota and approves it.

It has nothing to do with quality Eastern mobile photos. The images from just four years ago are quite sad, the quality of the mobile phones is superior to those old serial isolates. This is not an elite exhibition at a prestigious museum, it is microstock.

Conclusion, more than a year ago, they prepared the similar thing. Now, after many complaints, they put absurd reasons, because the similar thing is already burned. They decided to stop at the weekly image promotion long ago. They reached almost 2 million a week and decided to lower it to 1,200,000 a week.

The department that places images is the department that places 1,200,000 images a week. Placing is much slower. A larger department.

They decided 1,200,000 images a week. Perhaps for the current reason of 0.10 Cents.

They will soon approve everything, because they have the structure prepared for that amount of images, and now, it will cost them to reach that number of 1,200,000 images weekly.

vector99 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 09, 2020, 12:48 »

Shuttestock's new payment policy is unacceptable. A total disregard for all those who have long contributed to the growth of the company. They bet on garbage published in astronomical quantities ... I refuse to earn 10 cents per photo. I will not post more photos until them go back!

Tenebroso · « **Reply #20 on:** June 09, 2020, 13:02 »

A price increase for contributors will not return. It would be like letting taxpayers send and organize your business and this is not in your brain. They know the images of contributors that are not currently in their portfolio. Those portfolios with 60, 200 and 500 images of collaborators who leave or die. And they think they will get 1,200,000 new images a week.

They know that many clients will leave. but they also know that most buy in 3 minutes in the featured section. They think that clients buy what the Agency decides they buy. Their new discount, promotion and google advertising campaigns know they can get many new customers. I think Adobe will soon be a very competitive agency for contributors and the number one star agency in quality and quantity.

CommuniCat · « **Reply #21 on:** June 09, 2020, 13:20 »

Quote from: Tenebroso on June 09, 2020, 13:02

A price increase for contributors will not return. It would be like letting taxpayers send and organize your business and this is not in your brain. They know the images of contributors that are not currently in their portfolio. Those portfolios with 60, 200 and 500 images of collaborators who leave or die. And they think they will get 1,200,000 new images a week.

They know that many clients will leave. but they also know that most buy in 3 minutes in the featured section. They think that clients buy what the Agency decides they buy. Their new discount, promotion and google advertising campaigns know they can get many new customers. I think Adobe will soon be a very competitive agency for contributors and the number one star agency in quality and quantity.

Thanks for your insights. Just out of interest, how do you know so much about the inner workings of an agency. Were you a reviewer for SS?

Tenebroso · « **Reply #22 on:** June 09, 2020, 13:24 »

@ CommuniCat thanks. I am just a novice in everything, a Novice Expert.

It is very difficult not to find a valid image for a project among so many images. Therefore, for some time they will continue with the broadest collection of agencies. As for the files temporarily not collapsed for sale, for their shareholders and the year-end account, they count as files in their Agency, whether or not they are deactivated, it may be temporary. The deactivated files will be counted as files in possession. Maybe not, but it's not important.

Even if they reduce by 20 million images, and receive their 200k images daily, this is what they need for their plan. That they do not have the most current and the best quality, their brain tells them that they can handle this situation, because between 1,200,000 a week of new images they know that some can be placed in the Featured section. They lose clients who are looking for quality, but they will win clients who are going to find something to help them in their projects. However, it is a downhill SS, but it is not from today, it is long overdue.

This war is lost. Each collaborator must decide whether or not to upload images from 0.10

csm · « **Reply #23 on:** June 09, 2020, 15:06 »

Quote from: wollwerth on June 09, 2020, 09:06

If this portfolio is the direction that Shitterstock is going, I definitely don't want to be associated with them.

My thoughts entirely.
This isn't to my mind stock photography.
These are snaps.
If they are only prepared to pay artists $0.10 per sale, this the quality you will end up with, and I don't want to be associated with it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock, maybe they don't want us there (Read 6384 times)

epixx

Snow

Desintegrator

Snow

Desintegrator

Snow

panicAttack

CommuniCat

Uncle Pete

wds

Justanotherphotographer

wds

wollwerth

zsooofija

Justanotherphotographer

CommuniCat

MysteryShot

wollwerth

Tenebroso

vector99

Tenebroso

CommuniCat

Tenebroso

csm

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors