pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock starting terminating accounts of people criticising them  (Read 11133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2020, 01:51 »
+1
...meanwhile, I read on some Facebook groups that Shutterstock terminated and suspended the accounts of some contributors who criticize them on the Forum and Social media. In one case I read that even the Portfolio continuous to be on sale but without the name of the contributor! How low can you fall?

I've seen the blurred out name and avatar account because the person posted in a thread here yesterday. Does anyone have any specific information about a contributor account (not forum posting privileges) that's been suspended?

That was one of Fotolia's favorite tactics and I'd love to make noise about it if Shutterstock's done/is doing it. My quick scan of twitter and facebook this morning didn't reveal anything

I guess they delete everything from the account and the images need some time to vanish from the site.

There is nothing anymore on my portfolio just the link still exist as you can see by clicking it.
Did you remove your port or they did? Because, at first you were only banned from forum, the portfolio was up. This is really fcked.


« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2020, 03:10 »
+10
This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.


Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all  fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.

Uh, no, I wasn't doing any such thing.  Sorry.

« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2020, 03:22 »
+7
Making a script for easy file removal from Istock was not against the terms.

« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2020, 03:48 »
+1
...meanwhile, I read on some Facebook groups that Shutterstock terminated and suspended the accounts of some contributors who criticize them on the Forum and Social media. In one case I read that even the Portfolio continuous to be on sale but without the name of the contributor! How low can you fall?

I've seen the blurred out name and avatar account because the person posted in a thread here yesterday. Does anyone have any specific information about a contributor account (not forum posting privileges) that's been suspended?

That was one of Fotolia's favorite tactics and I'd love to make noise about it if Shutterstock's done/is doing it. My quick scan of twitter and facebook this morning didn't reveal anything

I guess they delete everything from the account and the images need some time to vanish from the site.

There is nothing anymore on my portfolio just the link still exist as you can see by clicking it.
Did you remove your port or they did? Because, at first you were only banned from forum, the portfolio was up. This is really fcked.

Nope, they did it, just the photos were slowly disappearing. Also the status of the account was first suspended, then disabled then no account is connected to this email address.

Then they went to find me on forum and ban me there cause I could write on forum for hours after my portfolio account was banned, and I wrote nothing special to stand out from the crowd for a ban.

They obviously didn't like changes on my profile description tagline

« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2020, 05:15 »
+3
...meanwhile, I read on some Facebook groups that Shutterstock terminated and suspended the accounts of some contributors who criticize them on the Forum and Social media. In one case I read that even the Portfolio continuous to be on sale but without the name of the contributor! How low can you fall?

I've seen the blurred out name and avatar account because the person posted in a thread here yesterday. Does anyone have any specific information about a contributor account (not forum posting privileges) that's been suspended?

That was one of Fotolia's favorite tactics and I'd love to make noise about it if Shutterstock's done/is doing it. My quick scan of twitter and facebook this morning didn't reveal anything

I guess they delete everything from the account and the images need some time to vanish from the site.

There is nothing anymore on my portfolio just the link still exist as you can see by clicking it.
Did you remove your port or they did? Because, at first you were only banned from forum, the portfolio was up. This is really fcked.

Nope, they did it, just the photos were slowly disappearing. Also the status of the account was first suspended, then disabled then no account is connected to this email address.

Then they went to find me on forum and ban me there cause I could write on forum for hours after my portfolio account was banned, and I wrote nothing special to stand out from the crowd for a ban.

They obviously didn't like changes on my profile description tagline
Sorry to hear that.

« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2020, 07:11 »
+2
The forum is a totally separate system to the SS account itself.
Anyone can set up a new forum account even if they dont hold an SS account.
All you need is an email address.

Snow

« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2020, 07:52 »
+5
I just posted this in another thread but it seems more fitting here so here goes:

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!

Clair Voyant

« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2020, 10:36 »
0
This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.


Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all  fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.

Uh, no, I wasn't doing any such thing.  Sorry.


So you are suggesting Istock just cancelled your contract for absolutely no reason? Why would any agency do that to one of their top producers without reason?











« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 10:38 by Clair Voyant »

« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2020, 10:59 »
+6
So you are suggesting Istock just cancelled your contract for absolutely no reason? Why would any agency do that to one of their top producers without reason?


Paranoia.  http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #59 on: May 31, 2020, 12:05 »
+5
This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.


Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all  fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.

Uh, no, I wasn't doing any such thing.  Sorry.


So you are suggesting Istock just cancelled your contract for absolutely no reason? Why would any agency do that to one of their top producers without reason?

Incompetency? After all of iStock's bad decisions back then, it didn't surprise me that iStock would continue to make bad business decisions.

Clair Voyant

« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2020, 12:25 »
+4
This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.


Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all  fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.

Uh, no, I wasn't doing any such thing.  Sorry.


So you are suggesting Istock just cancelled your contract for absolutely no reason? Why would any agency do that to one of their top producers without reason?

Incompetency? After all of iStock's bad decisions back then, it didn't surprise me that iStock would continue to make bad business decisions.

It was actually Getty Images that did the bidding for Istock. I don't agree with the way it was handled at all, or the outcome for that matter, but they shut the dissent down. Respectfully, he took one for the team.

Point being, none of these stock agencies give a flying F+++ about any of us and if there is dissent we are totally expendable, and Getty Images proved that.




« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2020, 12:42 »
+5
This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.


Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all  fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.

Uh, no, I wasn't doing any such thing.  Sorry.


So you are suggesting Istock just cancelled your contract for absolutely no reason? Why would any agency do that to one of their top producers without reason?

Incompetency? After all of iStock's bad decisions back then, it didn't surprise me that iStock would continue to make bad business decisions.

It was actually Getty Images that did the bidding for Istock. I don't agree with the way it was handled at all, or the outcome for that matter, but they shut the dissent down. Respectfully, he took one for the team.

Point being, none of these stock agencies give a flying F+++ about any of us and if there is dissent we are totally expendable, and Getty Images proved that.

Well stated. And it will not be any different with SS. The only way to impact SS in the longer term is through choking them with no content. All of the social media stuff might help in the short term but the dagger, if one exists, is to drain significant, high impact content. That is permanent and it directly affects the customer base. Dont get me wrong, bringing bad press is powerful, but it fades with time. Content is controllable by us which connects directly to the customer. In a utopian case we could technically put SS out of business tomorrow if we had unity with all contributors, and those contributors being willing to remove their assets. THAT would send a message to all of the other agencies when they want to take more from an already financially strained contributor base.  I know it is far fetched to think we can remove 330 million images, but that is the root of course correcting this mess. SS knows that only a fraction of that 330m images will be removed.  And the bad press will be short lived. Thats what they are banking this whole decision on.

« Reply #62 on: May 31, 2020, 12:44 »
+2
I did not receive the letter.
I requested it and was told to wait 24 hours.
I asked for it again.
I was told it has been 3 days so my request has expired.
I was sent an email to see if I was happy with my recent customer service.
I filled out their survey and yes, the comments box.
In the middle of this I had to ask Martha for a copy of HER letter.
Yes, I get tons of useless messages from them but no, I haven't been given notice.

« Reply #63 on: May 31, 2020, 12:51 »
0
I did not receive the letter.
I requested it and was told to wait 24 hours.
I asked for it again.
I was told it has been 3 days so my request has expired.
I was sent an email to see if I was happy with my recent customer service.
I filled out their survey and yes, the comments box.
In the middle of this I had to ask Martha for a copy of HER letter.
Yes, I get tons of useless messages from them but no, I haven't been given notice.

And I was happy to forward my letter to you.

But shame, shame, shame on SS for treating you and me and everybody else this way.

« Reply #64 on: May 31, 2020, 13:58 »
0
I have about $25 left in my Shutterstock account. If I disable my portfolio and leave Shutterstock will they pay out? Or will I have to wait until I hit $50? Thanks

« Reply #65 on: May 31, 2020, 14:15 »
0
I have about $25 left in my Shutterstock account. If I disable my portfolio and leave Shutterstock will they pay out? Or will I have to wait until I hit $50? Thanks

You can set the minimum payout to $35, but if you don't hit it this month payment should be due around the 8th of July if you disable your account.  They may pay you quicker if you close your account after you reach $35, they may not.

« Reply #66 on: May 31, 2020, 16:24 »
+4
I have about $25 left in my Shutterstock account. If I disable my portfolio and leave Shutterstock will they pay out? Or will I have to wait until I hit $50? Thanks

You can set the minimum payout to $35, but if you don't hit it this month payment should be due around the 8th of July if you disable your account.  They may pay you quicker if you close your account after you reach $35, they may not.

Or they may not pay you ever.


« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2020, 01:26 »
+8
SS has NOT changed RECENTLY. Once Jon decided to go public, he committed to throwing contributors under the bus to gain market share. Key employees put in place during the IPO publicly stated, that the objective was to lower prices with the intent to gain market share.

It is sad to read this thread and see, that some people are only now, waking up. Jon committed to exploiting contributors and running down prices in 2011. They intend to do so, until there is nothing left to wring out of contributor hides.

They fully understand that there is a limited window in which to exploit contributors under the downward trajectory that is their business plan.

Does anyone here belive they will not continue to lower prices until they have destroyed; even new contributor ability to make a slim dime. SS's business model has been an unsustainable pyramid scheme, for most contributors, since 2011.

And yes they banned people from the forms before & deleted ports when contributors complained about poor treatment. They were largely unresponsive on the forms in regard to serious contributors problems, from the very beginning.

As you can see on the forums there is always a fresh new crowd of contributors waiting to take advantage of algorithms; which benefit new contributors. And always new contributors, who are willing to buy into the lies and belive, that it will never happen to them. Because of course, they are strategic workers who produce superior content.

As always, some will disappear from stock and move on, just as many old timers did from MSG when they woke up to find sales had dropped by half because of algorithm changes tuned to give IS contributors jumping ship, a competitive advantage because they were at lower pay levels.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 10:27 by gbalex »

« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2020, 01:48 »
+1

As you can see on the forums there is always a fresh new crowd of contributors waiting to take advantage of algorithms; which benefit new contributors. And always new contributors, who are willing to buy into the lies and belive, that it will never happen to them. Because of course, they are strategic workers who produce superior content.

Fom what older contributors have told multiple times, the algorithm seems to benefits old contributors. A lot of oldtimers have confirmed that newly uploaded work does not sell at all for them, while their old images, that have been selling for 10 years+ continues to sell. 
Yes, they changed the algorithm in a way that new content was mixed into the "top image" resuts, but that was only for a very small period of time. Your new image would be there for a day, or sometimes even hours, depending on how much other new content with the same keywords came in, while old top images stayed on the first page permanently. I think with that mix Shutterstock tried to achieve a mix of exposure both to their newsellers as well as their bestsellers, but the 1million+ of newly images that are added each week are just too much to give every individual new image that is uploaded enough "stage time" for potential to become a permanent bestseller.

But since earnings for individuals have gone down over time (as can be seen in SS's sales report - They still have roughly the same profit, they still pay roughly the same to contributors, but the number of images has gone up drastically. So of course, in the end everyone gets a smaller piece of the pie) I can understand how older contributors would assume that new contributors would be to blame for having less of that pie.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 01:51 by Firn »

« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2020, 03:38 »
+2

Fom what older contributors have told multiple times, the algorithm seems to benefits old contributors. A lot of oldtimers have confirmed that newly uploaded work does not sell at all for them, while their old images, that have been selling for 10 years+ continues to sell. 

I suspect its more likely image ranking.  Images are ranked (search hits, click ratios, sales etc).
Older contributors with older images simply had more chance of selling due to the small library size at the time.  As a result those images ranked highly and remain so compared to the huge influx of unranked new images.

Alamy, AS and others we know rank images.
So i dont think its a per contributor ranking, more than fact that an older image thats sold before is going to have a lot longer and more opportunity to rank higher.


« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2020, 03:49 »
0
Deleted
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 03:57 by dragonblade »

« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2020, 03:53 »
0
A few things, SS "days" start on eastern time not UTC.

But also lots of things they do such as payments seem to be manually initiated so restricted to working hours EDT weekdays only.

Im guessing such a major change to billing would want the whole army of IT staff there to press the button,monitor and override if it all goes horribly wrong.

I wouldnt be amazed if nothing happens until tomorrow morning US time or later.

All my sub sales since mid night US time so far have been for the usual 0.38.  Admittedly only 6 of them so a small sample.

« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2020, 03:56 »
+1

I suspect its more likely image ranking.  Images are ranked (search hits, click ratios, sales etc).
Older contributors with older images simply had more chance of selling due to the small library size at the time.  As a result those images ranked highly and remain so compared to the huge influx of unranked new images.

Alamy, AS and others we know rank images.
So i dont think its a per contributor ranking, more than fact that an older image thats sold before is going to have a lot longer and more opportunity to rank higher.

Yes, I am sorry, I think I expressed myself not so well. I did not mean that Shutterstock favours older contributors, but older images that had more time to build up sales. But these images usually belong to long-time contributors.

 I have talked to old contributors who said that still, till today, they have some old images that sell on a daily base. I am a fairly new contributor, joned around 1.5 years ago and on Shutterstock I was really never able to establish any kind of such "bestseller". I have images that sell from time to time, but really nothing outstanding and my income comes from selling many different images rather than a few often. It's the opposite for me on Adobe though. There my income comes from a few images only that sell very regularly.

« Reply #73 on: June 01, 2020, 04:02 »
+1
It can vary.  Ive been on SS 10 years since May

Some of my best sellers are from that period (when i uploaded only good images because QC was strict).  They still sell on a daily basis.

But ive had others uploaded in the last 12 months that have taken off as well.

Some of it is luck, if someone/people need a specific image not long after it goes live and they happen to find it then that image will likely rank high and always sell for you.  But the reality is these days, MOST get buried before they're seen due to volume.

I think at some point most of us have fallen into the trap of seeing a few images selling, deciding to go out and take more and better images of the same thing and concept only to find out none of the newer stuff ever sells and the old one continues to do so.

We do know how Alamy and AS rank images because they tell us (keywords initially and a random element, over time more and more ranking/behaviour driven).  Although SS refuse to tell us its probably safe to assume they have a similar system.

I dont think its contributors favoured - i think its more that years ago it was easy easier to sell an image, any image and therefore get that ranks so it would sell more and more.  70,000 images vs 250,000,000 images.

« Reply #74 on: June 01, 2020, 11:08 »
+4

As you can see on the forums there is always a fresh new crowd of contributors waiting to take advantage of algorithms; which benefit new contributors. And always new contributors, who are willing to buy into the lies and belive, that it will never happen to them. Because of course, they are strategic workers who produce superior content.

Fom what older contributors have told multiple times, the algorithm seems to benefits old contributors. A lot of oldtimers have confirmed that newly uploaded work does not sell at all for them, while their old images, that have been selling for 10 years+ continues to sell. 
Yes, they changed the algorithm in a way that new content was mixed into the "top image" resuts, but that was only for a very small period of time. Your new image would be there for a day, or sometimes even hours, depending on how much other new content with the same keywords came in, while old top images stayed on the first page permanently. I think with that mix Shutterstock tried to achieve a mix of exposure both to their newsellers as well as their bestsellers, but the 1million+ of newly images that are added each week are just too much to give every individual new image that is uploaded enough "stage time" for potential to become a permanent bestseller.

But since earnings for individuals have gone down over time (as can be seen in SS's sales report - They still have roughly the same profit, they still pay roughly the same to contributors, but the number of images has gone up drastically. So of course, in the end everyone gets a smaller piece of the pie) I can understand how older contributors would assume that new contributors would be to blame for having less of that pie.

New contributors are NOT to blame, their only crime is believing the con/lies; that hook them into being exploited like the rest of us. In the end we are all in the same boat.

I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Jon and his IPO cohorts who are willing to watch us all buy more expensive kits, expensive software, etc, etc; fully knowing that what they have planned for the industry.

I also feel sorry for SS's staff, many of whom also belive the lies. Those with integrity like Scott, who moved on to Adobe.

Ask yourself why did SS suddenly hide the Weekly - Top 50 Best Selling Images?
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/how-are-sales-going-shutterstock/msg392983/#msg392983
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 11:23 by gbalex »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2867 Views
Last post September 21, 2013, 09:01
by WebSubstance
15 Replies
5190 Views
Last post May 14, 2017, 04:21
by Fredex
17 Replies
5188 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 11:59
by thor_odt
0 Replies
2139 Views
Last post October 17, 2018, 06:06
by designer093
24 Replies
2866 Views
Last post September 28, 2021, 12:07
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle