Author Topic: Shutterstock starting terminating accounts of people criticising them (Read 19226 times)

Jimbo · « **on:** May 30, 2020, 07:28 »

...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?

Rage · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2020, 07:40 »

Yup, lots of these stories. Forum account blocked, contributor account blocked but photos still visible on the profile page URL without name

Guess its implementation by force now. If this happened to you let's band together here and figure out what's going on

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Hannafate · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2020, 07:47 »

I am so glad I bailed out last year.

cobalt · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2020, 08:49 »

„Shutterstock goes to war against their own producer community in the middle of the corona pandemic and global recession cutting income of producers aggressively with just 6 days notice. Those who complained most about losing income abruptly got deleted from the platform“

Seriously, which brilliant mind at HQ thought this would be a fantastic headline to be spread all over social media??

How will that grow their business?

It really is so sad. We have seen so many similar things before. Going to war against producers is simply bad for business. No company with a sane mind intentionally provokes a global online shitstorm.

The content can easily be moved elsewhere and the customers go where the content is. It takes a while, yes.

But why would producers support a company that treats them like this.

SS was such a great place. What happened? It feels like this is a completly different business.

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2020, 09:25 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 08:49

SS was such a great place. What happened? It feels like this is a completly different business.

I think they just can't keep the business by using the traditional payout rate.

We are all angry with them and they have been very unprofessional with us, but I think this is a situation of either "we make a drastic change" or "we end up bankrupt"

I'm not defending them, I'm just trying to understand the movement.

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2020, 09:29 »

Quote from: Hannafate on May 30, 2020, 07:47

I am so glad I bailed out last year.

Me, too.

dragonblade · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2020, 09:45 »

SS are acting like a bunch of n***s. Meanwhile, their online mods are acting like the Gestapo.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2020, 10:23 »

Quote from: Mrblues101 on May 30, 2020, 09:25

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 08:49
SS was such a great place. What happened? It feels like this is a completly different business.

I think they just can't keep the business by using the traditional payout rate.

Not true. If they hadn't introduced the pay up front annual subscription option (some time recently; not sure exactly when) they could have continued as they were.

If they hadn't effed up their enterprise business - which has nothing to do with the subscription payouts - they wouldn't need to suddenly grow faster in the subscription business. If they had any sort of creativity, they wouldn't have decided to grow by slashing prices, which hurts all of us - all agencies as well as contributors - in the end

If you look at their Q1 numbers, they were profitable but just not growing the way Wall Street would like. This isn't a story of a business on the brink of failure trying to rescue itself.

And then we can look at their massively expensive office space in the Empire State building.

This was *not* in any way a change necessitated by an unsustainable business model. That's a fiction trotted out pretty much every time an agency wants to stick it to their contributors and enrich themselves

Shelma1 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2020, 10:30 »

May I recommend tweeting about the pay slash, the reco to go to Adobe instead, and the petition, and adding @adage (Advertising Age) and @adweek (Adweek) to get their attention? They’re the major newsmagazines for the advertising industry. Maybe we can get them to run a story about it. If anyone can think of other publications to add that reach large numbers of buyers...

Also, @freelancersu ...Freelancers Union, based in NYC. They also write stories.

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2020, 10:34 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:23

Quote from: Mrblues101 on May 30, 2020, 09:25
Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 08:49
SS was such a great place. What happened? It feels like this is a completly different business.

I think they just can't keep the business by using the traditional payout rate.

Not true. If they hadn't introduced the pay up front annual subscription option (some time recently; not sure exactly when) they could have continued as they were.

If they hadn't effed up their enterprise business - which has nothing to do with the subscription payouts - they wouldn't need to suddenly grow faster in the subscription business. If they had any sort of creativity, they wouldn't have decided to grow by slashing prices, which hurts all of us - all agencies as well as contributors - in the end

If you look at their Q1 numbers, they were profitable but just not growing the way Wall Street would like. This isn't a story of a business on the brink of failure trying to rescue itself.

And then we can look at their massively expensive office space in the Empire State building.

This was *not* in any way a change necessitated by an unsustainable business model. That's a fiction trotted out pretty much every time an agency wants to stick it to their contributors and enrich themselves

If things are like this, then I hate them

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2020, 10:43 »

Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28

...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

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2020, 10:57 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on May 30, 2020, 10:30

May I recommend tweeting about the pay slash, the reco to go to Adobe instead, and the petition, and adding @adage (Advertising Age) and @adweek (Adweek) to get their attention? They’re the major newsmagazines for the advertising industry. Maybe we can get them to run a story about it. If anyone can think of other publications to add that reach large numbers of buyers...

Also, @freelancersu ...Freelancers Union, based in NYC. They also write stories.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266760548835713024

and

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266813913426878464

and

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268215825380470784

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2020, 10:57 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43

Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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

SS did the same thing back when they introduced the paystructure where some people go 25c and some 38c. They let everyone rant for a while then went in after the fact scouring the thread for those insufficiently loyal, removing posting privileges then deleting the threads and comments.

Not sure if they actually closed contributor accounts back then either.

cobalt · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2020, 11:02 »

Agree with Jo Ann.

If you go to business websites and their own investor information and news, you can read the CEO happily announcing that they have no problems paying out the dividend, that there is no worry at all that the dividend might be cut or suspended due to corona and that cash flow is excellent.

This is not a struggling company laying of thousands of employees in a major global crisis.

This is simply aggressive greed.

Being innovative and coming up with new business ideas is hard work and takes good brainpower.

Drastically slashing what they pay suppliers is the easy quick fix and can lead to instantly improved balance sheets and bring in those juicy millions in bonuses for the management team.

This does not mean that they cannot ever change their rate card.

Just when you do it look at the whole picture, not just punch a few numbers.

You need to model how the producers react, especially how they react online...if you are an online business with a global marketplace.

Global recession, producer community abruptly out of work or unemployed, many of them living in countries with no basic state support....you cut their income with just 6 day notice...refuse to answer any real questions, ban people from the forums, delete contributor accounts,delete comments on instagram, hire rate monkeys to quickly push up your downgrades online...and still total silence from management.

Hiding under blankets is not the way to handle online drama. It just makes it much,much worse.

Any incoming online desaster must be immediatly clarified and controlled.

Banning people solves no problems. It just gives the producer community even more reasons to ghost you with uploads and direct attention to other companies.

And the sh—-t storm hasn‘t even started.

Due to language barries it takes 2-3 weeks before the producer community has really thought about what is going on, discussed it among themselves, before the really coordinated efforts start.

Nobody in the stock industry has ever done anything similar to what Shutterstock is doing now.

And because everyone is extremly stressed anyway because of Corona, Shutterstock is going to get hit much harder than fotolia or getty „back in their days“.

SS was a great agency. Now people feel betrayed.

Just a few days. It has been just a few days.

Rage · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2020, 11:41 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43

Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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

Lots on Twitter and FB Jo Ann. Attaching some screenshots, and apparently if you have money in your account at the time of closure that money is kept by them

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2020, 11:43 »

Quote from: izzikiorage on May 30, 2020, 11:41

Lots on Twitter and FB Jo Ann. Attaching some screenshots, and apparently if you have money in your account at the time of closure that money is kept by them

Thanks for posting those. Dirtbags...

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266775289427718145

I just wanted something concrete before I tweeted about it

I feel a blog post coming on - shades of 6 years ago with Fotolia

blue · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2020, 11:48 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43

Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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

Perhaps this one : https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gordan. It is Lizard's account (https://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=163)

blue · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2020, 11:56 »

Quote from: izzikiorage on May 30, 2020, 11:41

Lots on Twitter and FB Jo Ann. Attaching some screenshots, and apparently if you have money in your account at the time of closure that money is kept by them

Augustin Lazaroiu's account on SS : https://www.shutterstock.com/g/megasoft/

blue · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2020, 12:20 »

An article about SS new earning structure on Fstoppers : https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338

Chichikov · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2020, 12:40 »

They are also deleting posts on the forum.

This is what, in our marvelous liberal democrat society, we call freedom of speech…

Firn · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2020, 12:55 »

Wow. Thanks for the warning!
I guess I hereby officially leave the Shutterstock forum forever. Hello, Microstockgroup Forum!

Horizon · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2020, 13:43 »

Unfortunately this is what you get when computer geeks with a diaper management are trying to run a business. Turning against their producers of images!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2020, 13:50 »

Quote from: blue on May 30, 2020, 12:20

An article about SS new earning structure on Fstoppers : https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338

Another story worth re-tweeting with comments, if you're on twitter

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266795369792327680

DallasP · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2020, 14:03 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 11:02

Agree with Jo Ann.

If you go to business websites and their own investor information and news, you can read the CEO happily announcing that they have no problems paying out the dividend, that there is no worry at all that the dividend might be cut or suspended due to corona and that cash flow is excellent.

The words of CEOs are almost meaningless usually but, that measly 2% dividend isn't too difficult to pay out with their $300m cash sitting there and everyone's (all'yalls) assets to back them for future quarters.

Oh ... I didn't see this Q4 was a measly $.57 EPS. They aren't doing great. I'd almost feel bad if I gave a f*

EIPHOTO · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2020, 14:46 »

Regarding the above post - why would someone not be entitled to the payments in their account if they close their account and the amount is great than $35?

DallasP · « **Reply #25 on:** May 30, 2020, 14:49 »

Quote from: EIPHOTO on May 30, 2020, 14:46

Regarding the above post - why would someone not be entitled to the payments in their account if they close their account and the amount is great than $35?

Increasing shareholder value? lol.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #26 on:** May 30, 2020, 15:23 »

Quote from: EIPHOTO on May 30, 2020, 14:46

Regarding the above post - why would someone not be entitled to the payments in their account if they close their account and the amount is great than $35?

From the Terms of Service, section 8d:

"If your account is terminated for a breach of the material terms of the TOS, in addition to its other rights at law or in equity, Shutterstock shall have the right to retain any royalties and/or other compensation otherwise payable to you hereunder as liquidated damages."

One of the ways you can breach it is violating forum guidelines, section 7:

"Any activity by you on Shutterstock's forum (please see "Forum for Contributors") which does not adhere to Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines may result in the termination of your Shutterstock account. The terms of Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines are deemed incorporated into and made a part of the TOS by this reference."

Not saying any of this is right, just that that it's what we signed up for.

Rage · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2020, 15:54 »

Well, thats going to be a very very expensive mistake.

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

cobalt · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2020, 16:24 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 15:23

Quote from: EIPHOTO on May 30, 2020, 14:46
Regarding the above post - why would someone not be entitled to the payments in their account if they close their account and the amount is great than $35?

From the Terms of Service, section 8d:

"If your account is terminated for a breach of the material terms of the TOS, in addition to its other rights at law or in equity, Shutterstock shall have the right to retain any royalties and/or other compensation otherwise payable to you hereunder as liquidated damages."

One of the ways you can breach it is violating forum guidelines, section 7:

"Any activity by you on Shutterstock's forum (please see "Forum for Contributors") which does not adhere to Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines may result in the termination of your Shutterstock account. The terms of Shutterstock's Forum Guidelines are deemed incorporated into and made a part of the TOS by this reference."

Not saying any of this is right, just that that it's what we signed up for.

Have they EVER done something like this before? I personally met some fantastic SS employees and they always pointed out how much SS welcomes critique, even aggressive critique, because it makes them stronger.

Mind you, people from New York anyway seem to be a very straightforward talker kind of breed. I mean Germans are very pointed and direct, but the few times I was in New York I found conversations at times to be so brash and direct that even I had to get used to it.

Not that I am in any way an expert on the US or New York. Just a personal observation.

So now the new management has changed that direction.

Probably means contributors have to avoid the agency forums and can only express themselves on other plattforms.

Or they want to grow themselves a „woo yay“ crowd?

But how does that improve SS‘s reputation in dealing with the current crisis?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #29 on:** May 30, 2020, 16:39 »

I'm not aware of any account closures other than for image-related problems (stolen content, copied content, etc.). They are trying to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.

I know nothing of the new CEO, but he has no connection with contributors or the origins of the business. I don't expect them to change what they're doing, but I want them to get the biggest possible public shaming for behaving like uncaring corporate jerks.

There are businesses that don't like to be associated with (buy from) an unethical outfit. My tweets have emphasized the big corporation versus small-business contributor angle as I'm hoping it's the sort of viewpoint that might motivate buyers to shop eleswhere.

I'm also, even though I'm a minnow in their great pool of 320+ million images, highlighting images that are at the top of searches and will be going away, as another way to possibly engage the designer community. I have more, but here are a couple of examples so far

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266812478647709696

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266843339673886720

marthamarks · « **Reply #30 on:** May 30, 2020, 16:41 »

Quote from: Chichikov on May 30, 2020, 12:40

They are also deleting posts on the forum.

This is what, in our marvelous liberal democrat society, we call freedom of speech…

I would like your post were it not for this dumb clause: "in our marvelous liberal democrat society"

Because, frankly, this is not a partisan shitstorm. It's 100% a non-partisan shitstorm.

EIPHOTO · « **Reply #31 on:** May 30, 2020, 17:01 »

Jo Ann, Thank you for the reply. So it appears if you opt of sales and your earnings are more than $35 you still get the payout, unless they terminate you for whatever reason?

The pull this out of nowhere will a few days notice in the middle of a pandemic when people have money problems as it is, and wants to steal money from the contributors for calling them out on this???

DISGRACEFUL!!!

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #32 on:** May 30, 2020, 17:01 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39

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.

And the end result is Istock does not miss any of them, just as Shutterstock won't miss anyone who leaves.

It's all in the numbers.

It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but it's very sadly the truth.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** May 30, 2020, 17:13 »

I don't expect Shutterstock to care about deactivated portfolios, but I also don't want their actions to be silently accepted.

#BoycottShutterstock is making a difference

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268201397230551040

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268215825380470784

cobalt · « **Reply #34 on:** May 30, 2020, 17:43 »

If people not just switch off their ports for a week or two in protest, hoping SS will come back with a better plan and resolve the issue...if they really have decided to leave...then it is vital that their customers move with them.

In addition anyone that actually was banned from the platform for complaining that their income was cut with 6 days notice...they really have nothing to lose.

And many people will sympathize. The aggressive, huge company from New York with 300 million in cash, going after literally individual tiny contributors from countries with low income.

This is not just a huge marketing failure, it can become the basis of an unbelievable wave.

Burned contributors will have only one goal: to drive customers to their new favorite agency.

In this situation, where their other day job income has disappeared, they cannot afford to sit this out.

They have to restore the lost SS income very quickly,

Again...without the pandemic this might have all developped very differently.

I very sincerly hope they reconsider. Jon Oringer is still the largest shareholder with 45%. Is this shitstorm really what he wants?

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #35 on:** May 30, 2020, 17:45 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 17:13

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01
... but in all fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract...

That is just not true. Let's not de-rail this thread by dredging up ancient history, but I would just like to note the error. I note your differing viewpoint on what happened in 2013

I don't expect Shutterstock to care about deactivated portfolios, but I also don't want their actions to be silently accepted.

you actually derailed it by bringing up ancient history...

i was invited by rob at the time to some agency (forget the name) where the inner conversations were pretty aggressive against istock even discussing pooling funds to start working against Istock. somehow a mole got in there and also on the "secret" facebook group as well, and a lot of what went on there was definitely against the terms of "the contract", which i might ad was a unilateral contract, just like they all are these days. Those asshol3s at Getty put a very firm end to it, not even having the courtesy to "talk". - i guess inviting contributors over to a mutiny using PM on the site you are opposed to was not the brightest move after all.

again, not saying i like what happened in the past, but to claim innocence is not right either.

stock photographers are expendable... ancient history proves this.

FWIW Shutterstock and the current action they are doing especially during these very trying times is much much much worse that what Istock did to a few people long ago. In my books it's disgusting.

cobalt · « **Reply #36 on:** May 30, 2020, 18:38 »

Interesting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chinese-censorship-or-work-elsewhere-inside-shutterstock-s-free-speech-n1144211

„ The culture that we want to build is also one where when leadership makes a decision, we move on. We commit, and we move on," Pavlovsky said at the Dec. 10 internal meeting.

Pavlovsky didn't respond to an emailed interview request, but in his statement Wednesday he echoed his earlier statement: "As a transparent organization, one of our core practices is that once we've had an open and honest conversation on a topic, then we commit and move on“

Things have changed. If they have no problems telling longtime employees to quit, they obviously don‘t mind kicking out people who voice critique.

That is why there is no admin available for response on the SS forums.

It really is a completly different corporation.

„Tell me your problems, then go and do exactly as I say“

„My way or the Highway“

It sounds like a really scary place.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #37 on:** May 30, 2020, 19:00 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 18:38

Interesting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chinese-censorship-or-work-elsewhere-inside-shutterstock-s-free-speech-n1144211

„ The culture that we want to build is also one where when leadership makes a decision, we move on. We commit, and we move on," Pavlovsky said at the Dec. 10 internal meeting.

Pavlovsky didn't respond to an emailed interview request, but in his statement Wednesday he echoed his earlier statement: "As a transparent organization, one of our core practices is that once we've had an open and honest conversation on a topic, then we commit and move on“

Things have changed. And the market for micropriced content they are targeting is China.

I remember the stories about censorship at the time, but didn't see this particular story - which certainly outlines an unlikely-to-compromise Pavlovsky.

The problem he has in angering his suppliers is that it may be harder to get stuff to sell over time - without which he has no business - if the agency has a reputation for treating suppliers badly. It's really a gamble that he can afford to p*ss off lots of us and it won't matter to his customers.

Remember StockXpert that was bought by Jupiter Images because they needed new content for a few of their moribund subscription sites that didn't have enough new content to keep subscribers paying up? It can happen that big names - photos.com was the subscription site I think - can fail, as Jupiter Images itself did in time. Shutterstock isn't immune to these sorts of forces.

The fact that Jon Oringer is just standing by and letting this all happen infuriates me. He knows how this business was built, but he's letting someone else do his dirty work for him. He can't even make the bad news a personal message from him. I'll quote from the email in 2012 when Shutterstock went public:

"Today was a very exciting day for Shutterstock – a day that wouldn’t have been possible without each of you. This morning, Shutterstock became a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. This milestone is the result of many years of hard work and innovation, and perhaps most importantly, the incredible talent of each of our contributing artists. Together we have built a thriving, diverse, global creative marketplace that spans more than 150 countries. . . . As we celebrate this milestone, I would like to extend a sincere, heartfelt thank you for making this all possible. It is because of you that our marketplace is truly spectacular. We look forward to the exciting journey ahead, and will continue to work at making Shutterstock a rewarding experience for contributors. "

Edited to add a link to a tweet highlighting 2012 sentiments with the June 1st plan...

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1266884032731611136

cobalt · « **Reply #38 on:** May 30, 2020, 19:34 »

I can tell you one thing: someone who has no scruples to sweetly kick out 20% of hard working staff because they ask too many uncomfortable questions....this will not end well. This creates a very uncomfortable, secretive work environment for employees.

That is why the people that speak up in the SS forum are being kicked out. And why there are no admins talking to the community.

The contributors have no idea how drastically the company culture has changed. They are still part of the very vibrant, very dynamic old Shutterstock that the new CEO is trying to transform into a subservient „yes man“ entity.

And Oringer approves, if he cannot even stand up for his own people.

If the new CEO really has set all his focus on China - then he needs content that he can flip in very high volume for extremly low prices. 2 cents, 5 cents, 8 cents. 10 cents is the lowest for 2020...then....

And he believes the upload monkeys will happily supply 2 million files every week for him....and accept any price.

And every New Year the upset contributors can leave, the „yes sir“ people will stay.

But what if they don‘t?

Very frustrating to read this.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** May 30, 2020, 19:56 »

Quote from: izzikiorage on May 30, 2020, 11:41

...apparently if you have money in your account at the time of closure that money is kept by them

As your contract says they will.
"8.3 There is a minimum payout rate per accounting period of: Thirty Five US Dollars (USD 35.00) (the "Payout Minimum"). If during an accounting period, you haven't reached the Payout Minimum or provided Shutterstock a valid electronic payment account, your compensation will be rolled over into the next accounting period. If you cancel your account prior to accrued earnings in your royalty account reaching the applicable Payout Minimum, you thereby forfeit such royalties. For clarity, you shall have no right to any earnings accrued following the disabling of your contributor account or until such time as the applicable Payout Minimum threshold is reached."

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #40 on:** May 30, 2020, 20:02 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 18:38

Interesting.https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chinese-censorship-or-work-elsewhere-inside-shutterstock-s-free-speech-n1144211

„ The culture that we want to build is also one where when leadership makes a decision, we move on. We commit, and we move on," Pavlovsky said at the Dec. 10 internal meeting.

So essentially they want employees and partners to be farm animals. Sheep. Produce, be afraid and be quiet.

Sounds like Jonathan Klein. "Lovely to get the milk, the cream, cheese, yoghurt and the meat without buying the cow"

marthamarks · « **Reply #41 on:** May 30, 2020, 20:10 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 19:34

And Oringer approves, if he cannot even stand up for his own people.

There's an old, true saying: SILENCE EQUALS CONSENT.

We can safely assume that Oringer's silence equals his consent.

Lizard · « **Reply #42 on:** May 30, 2020, 20:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43

Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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.

dragonblade · « **Reply #43 on:** May 30, 2020, 21:23 »

Talk about an over reaction. Last night, on the Contributor Experience forum, there was a thread about who was going to leave and who was going to stay. Pretty harmless topic, huh? I had just finished reading that thread and about two seconds later (when I returned to the main forum) the thread was gone. I'm getting sick of this censorship.

obj owl · « **Reply #44 on:** May 30, 2020, 21:53 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 30, 2020, 19:56

Quote from: izzikiorage on May 30, 2020, 11:41
...apparently if you have money in your account at the time of closure that money is kept by them
As your contract says they will.
"8.3 There is a minimum payout rate per accounting period of: Thirty Five US Dollars (USD 35.00) (the "Payout Minimum"). If during an accounting period, you haven't reached the Payout Minimum or provided Shutterstock a valid electronic payment account, your compensation will be rolled over into the next accounting period. If you cancel your account prior to accrued earnings in your royalty account reaching the applicable Payout Minimum, you thereby forfeit such royalties. For clarity, you shall have no right to any earnings accrued following the disabling of your contributor account or until such time as the applicable Payout Minimum threshold is reached."

Would that be the case if they changed their Terms and Conditions given that it is usual to give 30 days notice to accept the terms or not?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #45 on:** May 30, 2020, 22:56 »

Quote from: dragonblade on May 30, 2020, 21:23

Talk about an over reaction. Last night, on the Contributor Experience forum, there was a thread about who was going to leave and who was going to stay. Pretty harmless topic, huh? I had just finished reading that thread and about two seconds later (when I returned to the main forum) the thread was gone. I'm getting sick of this censorship.

Their company, their forum. They can do whatever they want with it. Interesting to see the lengths they're going to though.

dragonblade · « **Reply #46 on:** May 30, 2020, 23:37 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 30, 2020, 22:56

Their company, their forum. They can do whatever they want with it. Interesting to see the lengths they're going to though.

Very true. Though that was one of the most harmless threads that emerged over the last few days. There are other threads that are much more provocative and very much anti-SS that still remain on the forum.

gnirtS · « **Reply #47 on:** May 31, 2020, 00:20 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39

I'm not aware of any account closures other than for image-related problems (stolen content, copied content, etc.). They are trying to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.

There were a few cases within the last few months of people getting accounts closed for "similars" because it breached T&Cs.
A few clearly were not full of similars, SS support refused to answer until a forum sh*t storm erupted and it got overturned.
Others though were terminated (rightly or wrongly. Thats a different debate). BUT the key difference here is SS support specifically told them the minimum payout had been reduced to ensure they got the money owed at the end of the month.

This keeping the money is something they've never done before which makes it look even more vindictive/intimidating.

The threads are buried a few pages deep on the contributor forum.

marthamarks · « **Reply #48 on:** May 31, 2020, 01:03 »

Quote from: dragonblade on May 30, 2020, 21:23

Talk about an over reaction. Last night, on the Contributor Experience forum, there was a thread about who was going to leave and who was going to stay. Pretty harmless topic, huh? I had just finished reading that thread and about two seconds later (when I returned to the main forum) the thread was gone. I'm getting sick of this censorship.

That censorship is pretty dumb anyway, isn't it?

Deleting criticism never makes it go away. Like Jello, it just squirts up/out somewhere else. Like here.

everest · « **Reply #49 on:** May 31, 2020, 01:26 »

It is not that easy. Of course we can never see what had happen if...... What if Sean was never quicked out, what if Arcurs would no had joined Getty and left Shutter and the others. Adding small motions to the wheel can slowly change the course of any giant.

Getty is a shadow of what they were. They are riddled with debt to a point that looking at the numbers the probability that they fade into oblition into the future, at least in the creative market, is high (editorial is another thing- their position there is stronger).

Shutter stock value has been on decline ever since they went public. Their growth is quite small now and one of the reason we have this shitstorm now.

Adobe on the rise but they do not depend on stock but rather their software division.

We are all small fish but without us nobody comes to the aquarium to see an empty glass tank. I wish we would be a little more aware of the power we have as a collective group.

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39
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.

And the end result is Istock does not miss any of them, just as Shutterstock won't miss anyone who leaves.

It's all in the numbers.

It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but it's very sadly the truth.

pics2 · « **Reply #50 on:** May 31, 2020, 01:51 »

Quote from: Lizard on May 30, 2020, 20:50

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43
Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #51 on:** May 31, 2020, 03:10 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39
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.

pics2 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 31, 2020, 03:22 »

Making a script for easy file removal from Istock was not against the terms.

Lizard · « **Reply #53 on:** May 31, 2020, 03:48 »

Quote from: pics2 on May 31, 2020, 01:51

Quote from: Lizard on May 30, 2020, 20:50
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43
Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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

pics2 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 31, 2020, 05:15 »

Quote from: Lizard on May 31, 2020, 03:48

Quote from: pics2 on May 31, 2020, 01:51
Quote from: Lizard on May 30, 2020, 20:50
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 10:43
Quote from: Jimbo on May 30, 2020, 07:28
...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.

gnirtS · « **Reply #55 on:** May 31, 2020, 07:11 »

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 »

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 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 31, 2020, 03:10

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39
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?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #58 on:** May 31, 2020, 10:59 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 31, 2020, 10:36

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 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 31, 2020, 12:05 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 31, 2020, 10:36

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 31, 2020, 03:10
Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39
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 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 31, 2020, 12:05

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 31, 2020, 10:36
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 31, 2020, 03:10
Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39
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.

Mantis · « **Reply #61 on:** May 31, 2020, 12:42 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 31, 2020, 12:25

Quote from: Noedelhap on May 31, 2020, 12:05
Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 31, 2020, 10:36
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 31, 2020, 03:10
Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 30, 2020, 17:01
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 16:39
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. Don’t 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. That’s what they are banking this whole decision on.

Pixart · « **Reply #62 on:** May 31, 2020, 12:44 »

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #63 on:** May 31, 2020, 12:51 »

Quote from: Pixart on May 31, 2020, 12:44

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.

JohnItalia · « **Reply #64 on:** May 31, 2020, 13:58 »

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

obj owl · « **Reply #65 on:** May 31, 2020, 14:15 »

Quote from: JohnItalia on May 31, 2020, 13:58

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #66 on:** May 31, 2020, 16:24 »

Quote from: obj owl on May 31, 2020, 14:15

Quote from: JohnItalia on May 31, 2020, 13:58
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.

gbalex · « **Reply #67 on:** June 01, 2020, 01:26 »

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.

Firn · « **Reply #68 on:** June 01, 2020, 01:48 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 01, 2020, 01:26

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.

gnirtS · « **Reply #69 on:** June 01, 2020, 03:38 »

Quote from: Firn on June 01, 2020, 01:48

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.

dragonblade · « **Reply #70 on:** June 01, 2020, 03:49 »

Deleted

gnirtS · « **Reply #71 on:** June 01, 2020, 03:53 »

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.

Firn · « **Reply #72 on:** June 01, 2020, 03:56 »

Quote from: gnirtS on June 01, 2020, 03:38

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.

gnirtS · « **Reply #73 on:** June 01, 2020, 04:02 »

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.

gbalex · « **Reply #74 on:** June 01, 2020, 11:08 »

Quote from: Firn on June 01, 2020, 01:48

Quote from: gbalex on June 01, 2020, 01:26

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

wordplanet · « **Reply #75 on:** June 01, 2020, 13:02 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on May 30, 2020, 10:30

May I recommend tweeting about the pay slash, the reco to go to Adobe instead, and the petition, and adding @adage (Advertising Age) and @adweek (Adweek) to get their attention? They’re the major newsmagazines for the advertising industry. Maybe we can get them to run a story about it. If anyone can think of other publications to add that reach large numbers of buyers...

Also, @freelancersu ...Freelancers Union, based in NYC. They also write stories.

I've noticed the NYTimes has started using shutterstock images since the coronavirus so I'd tag them as well @nytimes

wordplanet · « **Reply #76 on:** June 01, 2020, 13:13 »

Quote from: Chichikov on May 30, 2020, 12:40

They are also deleting posts on the forum.

This is what, in our marvelous liberal democrat society, we call freedom of speech…

Given their kowtowing to China's censorship, we shouldn't be surprised at their attitude toward freedom of speech. Really disgusted.

Big contrast with Alamy when they dropped commissions from 50% to 40%, they let people vent and came on the forums and interacted with people as well as responding to contributor emails. They are far from perfect but at least they don't ban people, instead they try to engage with their contributors.

gnirtS · « **Reply #77 on:** June 01, 2020, 13:19 »

Quote from: wordplanet on June 01, 2020, 13:13

Quote from: Chichikov on May 30, 2020, 12:40
They are also deleting posts on the forum.

This is what, in our marvelous liberal democrat society, we call freedom of speech…

Given their kowtowing to China's censorship, we shouldn't be surprised at their attitude toward freedom of speech. Really disgusted.

Big contrast with Alamy when they dropped commissions from 50% to 40%, they let people vent and came on the forums and interacted with people as well as responding to contributor emails. They are far from perfect but at least they don't ban people, instead they try to engage with their contributors.

Even iStock outlined *exactly* what the new structure was before it went live (i cant believe i just said that...)

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #78 on:** June 01, 2020, 17:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 08:49

„Shutterstock goes to war against their own producer community in the middle of the corona pandemic and global recession cutting income of producers aggressively with just 6 days notice. Those who complained most about losing income abruptly got deleted from the platform“

Seriously, which brilliant mind at HQ thought this would be a fantastic headline to be spread all over social media??

How will that grow their business?

It really is so sad. We have seen so many similar things before. Going to war against producers is simply bad for business. No company with a sane mind intentionally provokes a global online shitstorm.

The content can easily be moved elsewhere and the customers go where the content is. It takes a while, yes.

But why would producers support a company that treats them like this.

SS was such a great place. What happened? It feels like this is a completly different business.

the 'great' (barf) jon oringer left after cashing in

brianholm · « **Reply #79 on:** June 03, 2020, 07:30 »

Yup..... They now cut away my income, and have started deleting my portfolio. Yesterday it was at 795, right now at 130.......

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #80 on:** June 03, 2020, 10:07 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on June 01, 2020, 17:34

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2020, 08:49
„Shutterstock goes to war against their own producer community in the middle of the corona pandemic and global recession cutting income of producers aggressively with just 6 days notice. Those who complained most about losing income abruptly got deleted from the platform“

Seriously, which brilliant mind at HQ thought this would be a fantastic headline to be spread all over social media??

How will that grow their business?

It really is so sad. We have seen so many similar things before. Going to war against producers is simply bad for business. No company with a sane mind intentionally provokes a global online shitstorm.

The content can easily be moved elsewhere and the customers go where the content is. It takes a while, yes.

But why would producers support a company that treats them like this.

SS was such a great place. What happened? It feels like this is a completly different business.
the 'great' (barf) jon oringer left after cashing in

He didn't leave Shutterstock. He's now Executive Chairman of the Board.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #81 on:** June 03, 2020, 10:46 »

Quote from: Chichikov on May 30, 2020, 12:40

They are also deleting posts on the forum.

This is what, in our marvelous liberal democrat society, we call freedom of speech…

Just a small clarification: the freedom of speech is meant to protect us against an abusive government. A private company is something very different.

What SS did was expected. It shouldn't be a surprise for anyone. It's their forum and their rules. It also happened before this royalty debacle. Members using abusive language were suspended or banned. It also happens, granted less often, on this forum as well.
A private forum has nothing to do with any liberal or illiberal societies because a private company is NOT a democracy.

Even on this forum, it is very much advisable to stay as anonymous as possible if one intends to criticize an agency, without wishing to leave it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock starting terminating accounts of people criticising them (Read 19226 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Chichikov

marthamarks

Clair Voyant

Clair Voyant

marthamarks

marthamarks

Snow

Clair Voyant

Clair Voyant

marthamarks

marthamarks

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors