Author Topic: Shutterstock steals sales. Control purchase (Read 3862 times)

PokemonMaster · « **on:** February 11, 2024, 11:06 »

It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details. But it comes from a trusted contributor, experienced, with a pretty old portfolio.

At the end of October, we decided to make a control purchase on the Shutterstock, collaborated with colleagues and bought a package of “25 Standard one-time” demands. Purchases were made of works that had never been sold, with the help of a real customer within a spread of 10 days.
Divided it like this: 5 purchases from my accounts, 11 purchases from colleagues’ accounts, 9 purchases randomly.
Of my five - 1 appeared on the first day, 1 - after a couple of days, and another one after 4 days
The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7

So, 70% of the sales via one-time demands package are lost! What do you think about this?

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2024, 11:42 »

Believable. Need 3rd party auditing to ensure they do things fairly. They've already demonstrated a number of times they are dishonest (i.e., "selling ai" data first, "then" saying here's some peanuts and 'now' you can choose not to participate). Jon originer cashed out & bailed a couple years ago too. The "exciting news" that they restructured payments to make it poorer for contributors, etc. They are dishonest. Wouldn't be surprised if that was the case of what was going on.

This type of auditing by contributors would actually be a very good thing. Share results/youtube videos/etc if indeed that is what is happening. First raise awareness of the dishonest tactic, and then get pressure to get accountability and things 'fixed'.

blvdone · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2024, 12:34 »

That's a huge scandal if it's true!!!

Stockmaan · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2024, 13:08 »

Quote from: blvdone on February 11, 2024, 12:34

That's a huge scandal if it's true!!!

I have almost 10k videos at Pond5 and sell 1 YES just one in 14th days. Last month I have two sales! If Shutterstock does that than Pond5 do taht to. At Adobe I sell around 20 videos a day. On Shutterstock maybe 1 or 2/day. Pond5 2/month.

At Shutterstock and Adobe I have 10k videos too..

Roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2024, 15:54 »

It's an interesting experiment, and I understand that the contributors want to stay anonymous, because buying your own images is against the TOS. But on the other hand, this leaves very little room for verification. Anyone can claim anything. Always be careful with 3rd party information like "heard it from a friend who has been told by a friend that another friend..." Information can get thickened or altered per hop :-).

Not saying it isn't true, but always be careful with jumping into conclusions. We don't know what happened afterwards, there might be a delay in reporting, and maybe the rest of the sales were reported later, after the story started to get around. Or the system flagged some sales as fraudulent, because, well, they were buying their own images, and however not directly, it still might have triggered some red flags in the system.

That said. I wouldn't be too surprised either if it's true. There's also no way to know what has been sold to whom and how it is used. We just have to... trust the agencies. And in all fairness, that's a bit of a stretch for me. They might not hold back on reporting deliberately, but technical issues do occur, and what happens in case of database corruptions, interfacing issues, or anything else technical. I can imagine that in such case some sales went into the nirvana and never got reported.

I don't have a personal experience with this. I use google alerts to see if one of my images pops up on the internet (if I'm credited) and in such cases there was always a matching sale reported at the agency. I know this covers only the tip of the iceberg, and impossible to track for images that sell daily or very regularly, but at least, it's that. Until now I could not catch one of the agencies on not reporting a sale.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2024, 16:21 »

Quote from: Roscoe on February 11, 2024, 15:54

It's an interesting experiment, and I understand that the contributors want to stay anonymous, because buying your own images is against the TOS. But on the other hand, this leaves very little room for verification. Anyone can claim anything. Always be careful with 3rd party information like "heard it from a friend who has been told by a friend that another friend..." Information can get thickened or altered per hop :-).

Not saying it isn't true, but always be careful with jumping into conclusions. We don't know what happened afterwards, there might be a delay in reporting, and maybe the rest of the sales were reported later, after the story started to get around. Or the system flagged some sales as fraudulent, because, well, they were buying their own images, and however not directly, it still might have triggered some red flags in the system.

That said. I wouldn't be too surprised either if it's true. There's also no way to know what has been sold to whom and how it is used. We just have to... trust the agencies. And in all fairness, that's a bit of a stretch for me. They might not hold back on reporting deliberately, but technical issues do occur, and what happens in case of database corruptions, interfacing issues, or anything else technical. I can imagine that in such case some sales went into the nirvana and never got reported.

I don't have a personal experience with this. I use google alerts to see if one of my images pops up on the internet (if I'm credited) and in such cases there was always a matching sale reported at the agency. I know this covers only the tip of the iceberg, and impossible to track for images that sell daily or very regularly, but at least, it's that. Until now I could not catch one of the agencies on not reporting a sale.

Thank you, you have also summarized my thoughts very well here.
Fraud is conceivable and possible, but there are too many unknown variables to draw reliable conclusions.

Edit:

What always makes me a little suspicious these days are lurid sensational headlines without supporting evidence: "Shutterstock steals sales..."

At this point in time, this should perhaps have been worded a little differently.

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2024, 16:35 »

At least please keep us updated if the sales maybe show up later. Perhaps there is a (new?) delay in reporting the sales.

I find it difficult to believe this is indeed a widespread problem because many designers and producers know each other and buy from the agency while talking to the producer.

But if true it would be horrible indeed.

FHphotography · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2024, 18:52 »

Omg. That is bad!!

I have noticed that whenever I have larger sale the subscription sales dry up. Why is that so? Or they just might regulate the sales. After all they have to pay for investors...fudge the workers..I mean us...
There must be no inflation in their world...

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2024, 19:03 »

I would get a friend to sign up, download 1-3 of your assets, and maybe of several other people (use search terms you know you show up for, as opposed to directly accessing the portfolio). Test it - and see if you get credit.

Post results here. Contributor auditing is a good idea.

blvdone · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2024, 20:49 »

Quote from: Stockmaan on February 11, 2024, 13:08

Quote from: blvdone on February 11, 2024, 12:34
That's a huge scandal if it's true!!!

I have almost 10k videos at Pond5 and sell 1 YES just one in 14th days. Last month I have two sales! If Shutterstock does that than Pond5 do taht to. At Adobe I sell around 20 videos a day. On Shutterstock maybe 1 or 2/day. Pond5 2/month.

At Shutterstock and Adobe I have 10k videos too..

Try deleting all your videos on Adobe Stock and un-publish all your videos on Shutterstock. Your buyers may know you sell the same clips much cheaper on Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. And price your videos at reasonable price on Pond5, $49-89/HD and $99-199.4k.

pancaketom · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2024, 21:21 »

Quote from: blvdone on February 11, 2024, 20:49

Quote from: Stockmaan on February 11, 2024, 13:08
Quote from: blvdone on February 11, 2024, 12:34
That's a huge scandal if it's true!!!

I have almost 10k videos at Pond5 and sell 1 YES just one in 14th days. Last month I have two sales! If Shutterstock does that than Pond5 do taht to. At Adobe I sell around 20 videos a day. On Shutterstock maybe 1 or 2/day. Pond5 2/month.

At Shutterstock and Adobe I have 10k videos too..

Try deleting all your videos on Adobe Stock and un-publish all your videos on Shutterstock. Your buyers may know you sell the same clips much cheaper on Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. And price your videos at reasonable price on Pond5, $49-89/HD and $99-199.4k.

That might be a good idea - until SS makes all of p5 content available for subs sales.

blvdone · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2024, 23:59 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 11, 2024, 21:21

Quote from: blvdone on February 11, 2024, 20:49
Quote from: Stockmaan on February 11, 2024, 13:08
Quote from: blvdone on February 11, 2024, 12:34
That's a huge scandal if it's true!!!

I have almost 10k videos at Pond5 and sell 1 YES just one in 14th days. Last month I have two sales! If Shutterstock does that than Pond5 do taht to. At Adobe I sell around 20 videos a day. On Shutterstock maybe 1 or 2/day. Pond5 2/month.

At Shutterstock and Adobe I have 10k videos too..

Try deleting all your videos on Adobe Stock and un-publish all your videos on Shutterstock. Your buyers may know you sell the same clips much cheaper on Shutterstock and Adobe Stock. And price your videos at reasonable price on Pond5, $49-89/HD and $99-199.4k.

That might be a good idea - until SS makes all of p5 content available for subs sales.

That may or may not happen. I do what's best for me now.

k_t_g · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2024, 01:12 »

It feels like they do bait a bit. Might be possible? Or is it my imagination? 🤔

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2024, 01:47 »

I would not be surprised. After all we already know for a fact that this happens regularly on Alamy. I have found multiple images of mine online credited to Alamy, but never had any sales for these images reported on Alamy. And in some cases the images had been used on websites for well over a year.
When I contacted Alamy, they "hunted down the sale" and the images were reported as sales after all, but had I not taken any actions, I would never have gotten money for these sales. And I have read of similar stories from other contributors.
And finding these unregistered sales was only possible because the sites credited Alamy and because I have so few sales on Alamy that it is easier to know that an image has never been reported as sold. But on Shutterstock, with severl hundred sales per month, when I find an image online, even IF it is credited to Shutterstock, then I have no way to know whether the particular sale was reported or not.

thx9000 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2024, 03:24 »

The hunch I developed about SS over the years is that they basically give you a "salary" based on your portfolio quality, size and current uploads. Most of the sales are real but they would hide or add fictitious sales in order to keep you in the tier you've been attributed to. So many times my monthly sales would be below average and then several big sales would make things right. Or I'd be having a great run of sales for 3/4 of the month to then completely dry up and again finish around average. You really can't ignore this pattern after spending over almost 15 years with them.

The right way to test SS would be to have some sort of contributor association which would hire an external agency to perform the role of hidden random customer and then share the results so the association could actually confront SS in case of fraud. Otherwise we're only driving ourselves crazy with conspiracy theories and meanwhile SS are laughing all the way to the bank

cobalt · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2024, 04:03 »

It just needs graphic designers who have regular SS plans to inform artists if they download their files for their projects.

No extra special sign ups needed.

10 design companies informing various producers for their last 100 downloads should clear this up easily.

Or a magazine like petapixel or any other media outlet that buys a lot from Shutterstock. Publish the date and files they bought in the last weeks.

It would be a huge scandal if this true and obviously a criminal act.

A different thing to „just“ cutting royalties.

synthetick · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2024, 05:02 »

Shocking if this is true, but I find it hard to believe, even from SS. Anyway, in 10 days’ time, SS will release their quarterly report and it will be interesting to see how many subscribers they have left. I haven’t sold a single video on their site so far this month, just 3 video sales through some low priced partners (maybe Wix?) for a total of $1.90. I used to make $1000’s there. My bestsellers are still well-placed in search results.

quaqua · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2024, 07:42 »

Quote from: thx9000 on February 12, 2024, 03:24

The hunch I developed about SS over the years is that they basically give you a "salary" based on your portfolio quality, size and current uploads. Most of the sales are real but they would hide or add fictitious sales in order to keep you in the tier you've been attributed to. So many times my monthly sales would be below average and then several big sales would make things right. Or I'd be having a great run of sales for 3/4 of the month to then completely dry up and again finish around average. You really can't ignore this pattern after spending over almost 15 years with them.

The right way to test SS would be to have some sort of contributor association which would hire an external agency to perform the role of hidden random customer and then share the results so the association could actually confront SS in case of fraud. Otherwise we're only driving ourselves crazy with conspiracy theories and meanwhile SS are laughing all the way to the bank

I agree with you. I think they will use an algorithm to control how many pictures sells in a day

Jaggy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2024, 12:10 »

Contact the auditors ... I believe it's PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Explain that you believe that SS may be defrauding suppliers/contributors and that this could be leading to a material misstatement of the financial statements. Obviously give sufficient detail to support your concerns.

You could also contact the SEC with your concerns and, if PwC ignore you, contact the PCAOB.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2024, 13:35 »

Quote from: PokemonMaster on February 11, 2024, 11:06

It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details. But it comes from a trusted contributor, experienced, with a pretty old portfolio.

At the end of October, we decided to make a control purchase on the Shutterstock, collaborated with colleagues and bought a package of “25 Standard one-time” demands. Purchases were made of works that had never been sold, with the help of a real customer within a spread of 10 days.
Divided it like this: 5 purchases from my accounts, 11 purchases from colleagues’ accounts, 9 purchases randomly.
Of my five - 1 appeared on the first day, 1 - after a couple of days, and another one after 4 days
The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7

So, 70% of the sales via one-time demands package are lost! What do you think about this?

I think it's irresponsible, and hard accept based on, someone who knows someone, who said they did this.

There needs to be better accounting and methodology before the headline claim "Shutterstock steals sales. Control purchase"

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2024, 14:50 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 12, 2024, 13:35

I think it's irresponsible and there's nothing but someone who knows someone who said they did this.

There needs to be better accounting and methodology to start running to forums with "Shutterstock steals sales. Control purchase" claims. I'm not the one, but years ago someone else and a few people said, if Leaf wants to risk the whole forum and being sued by allowing this kind of post, he's risking that all, for rumors and a friend who knows someone who.... What I mean is, SS could sue him into oblivion.

"The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7" And "9 purchases randomly" If there were 9 random purchases, how did this group verify, if there were sales reported or not. Did they go contact the 9 random people who had images, with no sales? Can you see if an image has no sales, on someone else's account?

How many sales does this image have?

If Shutterstock reads your message, they could shut down the forum, demand to know who you are, and by law Leaf has to tell them anything he knows, email/IP address/logins, and then you would be sued for libel.

How about someone do this test, with data, verification of everything, and independence from the contributors financially. Then after discovering if the claims have a basis in fact, publish the study. Do what you claimed, buy a 25 pack, start a fresh new buyer account, no link to any contributors. Find 25 contributors that can be associated with their images. Make the buy, without their knowledge, without knowing which image. Wait a week and collect the facts.

I'm really surprised at how many people here are willing to spread rumors and believe that the whole Microstock industry is just a game, and fake. I've read the same claims about other agencies, just in case that seems out of place. Especially DP and those not based in the US.

Fair is fair, ask for the proof and people making claims, show the evidence, not I know someone knows someone, who says...

Thanks Pete, thought I was the only one with rumblings in my belly here.

"Shutterstock steals sales..." is sold as fact in the headline here. No evidence is given.

But somehow it works, as it always does. Because the news fits the picture for many, the brain is switched off and the "facts" are applauded.

Based on journalistic research, millions of people in Germany are taking to the streets against a right-wing party. Because it fits the political mood, the content was adopted one-to-one without thinking by politicians and the press.
It is now becoming increasingly clear that this research was largely a hoax.
The protests continue nonetheless, and the wording and narrative continue to be used.

blvdone · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2024, 15:52 »

Is it a violation of Shutterstock contributor agreement to buy your own work? I thought it was.

blvdone · « **Reply #22 on:** February 12, 2024, 16:03 »

Honestly, if "It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details.", I don't believe it. Why should I believe it? False accusation is a serious thing. I don't believe anything without seeing an evidence on my own eyes.

As much as most of us contributors dislike Shutterstock these days, can't accuse anybody without firm evidence. There are too many of those false accusations/fake news out there on internet. There's no way for me to investigate this particular case. So, I don't believe it at all till I see the evidence. That being said, I think those low sales numbers on Shutterstock are real. They don't get the best contents for video nor photos. So, customers are leaving as many contributors left. The best photos go to Adobe Stock and the best videos go to Pond5. So it was wise for them to buy Pond5. And probably was a big pay day for some long time Pond5 employees who might have had a stock option on Pond5.

PokemonMaster · « **Reply #23 on:** February 12, 2024, 22:17 »

Quote from: Roscoe on February 11, 2024, 15:54

It's an interesting experiment, and I understand that the contributors want to stay anonymous, because buying your own images is against the TOS. But on the other hand, this leaves very little room for verification. Anyone can claim anything. Always be careful with 3rd party information like "heard it from a friend who has been told by a friend that another friend..." Information can get thickened or altered per hop :-)

It's not much a friend of a friend thing. I know the guy on the forums for many years. And yes, it's about ToS. He is still not ready to pull out the portfolio from SS.

But this is not the first time I have seen such accusations against the SS. It was always something like, “I know the client and he told me about a purchase that I don’t see,” or someone would just say that some studio made a control purchase and it's failed, etc. Things I might have missed or not believed. But this time I have a clear numbers, clear data on what and when. That's why I bring it here.

PokemonMaster · « **Reply #24 on:** February 12, 2024, 22:25 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 11, 2024, 16:35

At least please keep us updated if the sales maybe show up later. Perhaps there is a (new?) delay in reporting the sales.

I find it difficult to believe this is indeed a widespread problem because many designers and producers know each other and buy from the agency while talking to the producer.

But if true it would be horrible indeed.

Three months passed. On-demand package from one customer. How much "later" can it be? They should pay it out at the same month as the package was spent!

It's a microstock industry. I think we don't know the people on the other side much. A lot of people work here just to avoid customer contacts

Because there's Upwork for those who don't. But as I said, I heard about this before. This is just the clearest case with numbers

PokemonMaster · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2024, 22:31 »

Quote from: SuperPhoto on February 11, 2024, 19:03

I would get a friend to sign up, download 1-3 of your assets, and maybe of several other people (use search terms you know you show up for, as opposed to directly accessing the portfolio). Test it - and see if you get credit.

Post results here. Contributor auditing is a good idea.

Just be careful with it. It may be treated as an agreement with a buyer, which is against the ToS

Stock4Me · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2024, 07:28 »

Quote from: blvdone on February 12, 2024, 16:03

Honestly, if "It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details.", I don't believe it. Why should I believe it? False accusation is a serious thing. I don't believe anything without seeing an evidence on my own eyes.

As much as most of us contributors dislike Shutterstock these days, can't accuse anybody without firm evidence. There are too many of those false accusations/fake news out there on internet. There's no way for me to investigate this particular case. So, I don't believe it at all till I see the evidence. That being said, I think those low sales numbers on Shutterstock are real. They don't get the best contents for video nor photos. So, customers are leaving as many contributors left. The best photos go to Adobe Stock and the best videos go to Pond5. So it was wise for them to buy Pond5. And probably was a big pay day for some long time Pond5 employees who might have had a stock option on Pond5.

Third party information without details. Does anyone think we haven't done this test before to see if all were being reported. I thought Lagereek was banned from the forum for life. This is his kind of crap claim. You're right about the TOS and we can't buy our own photos but paying someone to download 1 from 25 different people, to test SS isn't a violation. No evidence no facts.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2024, 07:45 »

Quote from: Stock4Me on February 13, 2024, 07:28

Third party information without details. Does anyone think we haven't done this test before to see if all were being reported. I thought Lagereek was banned from the forum for life. This is his kind of crap claim. You're right about the TOS and we can't buy our own photos but paying someone to download 1 from 25 different people, to test SS isn't a violation. No evidence no facts.

For example, Adobe bans an author when it sees abnormal sales activity in the author's portfolio.

Shalom from a Jew · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2024, 08:25 »

A year ago I made a test purchase, but some of the sales were not displayed.
Who needs proof here, post some photos, I'll buy them and see how many of them you see for sale.

I will continue to work with the reserve, but the material I put in there is second-rate.

Year of the Dog · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2024, 09:45 »

Quote from: PokemonMaster on February 12, 2024, 22:17

Quote from: Roscoe on February 11, 2024, 15:54
It's an interesting experiment, and I understand that the contributors want to stay anonymous, because buying your own images is against the TOS. But on the other hand, this leaves very little room for verification. Anyone can claim anything. Always be careful with 3rd party information like "heard it from a friend who has been told by a friend that another friend..." Information can get thickened or altered per hop :-)
It's not much a friend of a friend thing. I know the guy on the forums for many years. And yes, it's about ToS. He is still not ready to pull out the portfolio from SS.

But this is not the first time I have seen such accusations against the SS. It was always something like, “I know the client and he told me about a purchase that I don’t see,” or someone would just say that some studio made a control purchase and it's failed, etc. Things I might have missed or not believed. But this time I have a clear numbers, clear data on what and when. That's why I bring it here.

This is a good idea. Ask your friend to check DP, DT, AS, IS and Alamy for the same, then write the anonymous report of the findings. Why only SS?

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2024, 16:52 »

Quote from: PokemonMaster on February 11, 2024, 11:06

It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details. But it comes from a trusted contributor, experienced, with a pretty old portfolio.

At the end of October, we decided to make a control purchase on the Shutterstock, collaborated with colleagues and bought a package of “25 Standard one-time” demands. Purchases were made of works that had never been sold, with the help of a real customer within a spread of 10 days.
Divided it like this: 5 purchases from my accounts, 11 purchases from colleagues’ accounts, 9 purchases randomly.
Of my five - 1 appeared on the first day, 1 - after a couple of days, and another one after 4 days
The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7

So, 70% of the sales via one-time demands package are lost! What do you think about this?

If any of this is true, you need to take the evidence to the state attorney general of New York. Then get representation and file a class action suit on our behalf, all of us can collect back earnings after an audit.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2024, 17:40 »

I find it hard to believe a major agency would so blatantly and obviously pocket royalties belong to the contributor. Because the legal consequences would be huge if this was found to be true. Would they risk it for a few cents per sale?
I wouldn't be surprised if either one of the following scenarios is true:
1) The claim is a lie
2) The 'control purchase' was not conducted properly or one of the buyers made a mistake
3) The sale was delayed due to a system error or some flagging and will show up sooner or later

FHphotography · « **Reply #32 on:** February 13, 2024, 18:29 »

I actually hope that agency spys read this post and check the complaints. Maybe we well get more earnings

. Now that agency knows that people might test them. No matter what this is serious.

pancaketom · « **Reply #33 on:** February 13, 2024, 19:19 »

They say never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. If the way they record sales is anything like how they improve the contributor experience then I have no confidence in them.

That said, I find it hard to believe they are regularly not reporting sales. If so, they are opening themselves up to serious consequences, it would be nice to see some good independent auditing though. I think they are taking such a large percentage of every sale legally according to their rules, it seems weird they would have to cheat when the setup is already so tilted in their favor.

Ambu · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2024, 01:10 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 13, 2024, 19:19

They say never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. If the way they record sales is anything like how they improve the contributor experience then I have no confidence in them.

That said, I find it hard to believe they are regularly not reporting sales. If so, they are opening themselves up to serious consequences, it would be nice to see some good independent auditing though. I think they are taking such a large percentage of every sale legally according to their rules, it seems weird they would have to cheat when the setup is already so tilted in their favor.

Yes, they are taking large percentage.

But,

Before they introduced subscription plans for videos, my RPD was between $22-$25, but now its between $5-$8.
So, if my earnings decreased means, their earnings also decreasing even they are taking large percentage.
So, how to they cover their earnings to maintain same level they getting before they introducing those plans?

Are they really making 3 to 4 times more sales to maintain same level, after they introducing subscription plans?

alan b traehern · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2024, 10:37 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on February 13, 2024, 16:52

Quote from: PokemonMaster on February 11, 2024, 11:06
It's a third-party information, so probably I will not be able to provide further details. But it comes from a trusted contributor, experienced, with a pretty old portfolio.

At the end of October, we decided to make a control purchase on the Shutterstock, collaborated with colleagues and bought a package of “25 Standard one-time” demands. Purchases were made of works that had never been sold, with the help of a real customer within a spread of 10 days.
Divided it like this: 5 purchases from my accounts, 11 purchases from colleagues’ accounts, 9 purchases randomly.
Of my five - 1 appeared on the first day, 1 - after a couple of days, and another one after 4 days
The result as of February 1 is the total number of sales for all interested parties - 7

So, 70% of the sales via one-time demands package are lost! What do you think about this?

If any of this is true, you need to take the evidence to the state attorney general of New York. Then get representation and file a class action suit on our behalf, all of us can collect back earnings after an audit.

Where is the stock coalition? They should be all over this and tracking data for a legal filing against SS. If this claim is false, we should be told that it's nothing but a sensational lie. The fact that 19 people gave a claim with no evidence a + tells me how weak education is and the lack of critical thinking. Do you believe everything that an anonymous person on a forum write is truth. Or is it just because you want bad things about SS to be true?

yuriy · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2024, 14:09 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2024, 17:40

I find it hard to believe a major agency would so blatantly and obviously pocket royalties belong to the contributor. Because the legal consequences would be huge if this was found to be true. Would they risk it for a few cents per sale?
I wouldn't be surprised if either one of the following scenarios is true:
1) The claim is a lie
2) The 'control purchase' was not conducted properly or one of the buyers made a mistake
3) The sale was delayed due to a system error or some flagging and will show up sooner or later

You must have been very surprised to learn Enron was cooking the books. Giant companies cheat and lie all the time. They are seldom caught because there is negligible oversight. We have no access to sales data apart from what SS or other agencies tell us and they have a very good incentive to lie. The best we can do is conduct these risky unscientific experiments to try to get a little more data. I'm not saying OP's post proves anything but its one more data point than we had before and you're welcome to believe it or not. I'm tempted to try it myself but I earn so little from SS that it would cost nearly all my earnings to buy a single pack.

spike · « **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2024, 16:01 »

If this really were true, it would be such a easy and stupid way for SS to end up in court and paying out millions.

So if this happened, one has the purchase date, the ID of the asset bought. Screenshot both, maybe even do a screen recording of buying the assets. If they don't appear in your sales after a month - voila, you've got yourself a case against SS and potentially millions in reimbursement.

That's what I would do if I had solid proof of this happening. Not posting on a forum frequented by 50 people.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #38 on:** February 14, 2024, 17:06 »

Quote from: spike on February 14, 2024, 16:01

So if this happened, one has the purchase date, the ID of the asset bought. Screenshot both, maybe even do a screen recording of buying the assets. If they don't appear in your sales after a month - voila, you've got yourself a case against SS and potentially millions in reimbursement.

Just like that. You could prove it if you wanted to, especially as it was alleged that work was affected that had never been sold before. Screenshots on both pages.

alan b traehern · « **Reply #39 on:** February 17, 2024, 04:26 »

Quote from: yuriy on February 14, 2024, 14:09

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2024, 17:40
I find it hard to believe a major agency would so blatantly and obviously pocket royalties belong to the contributor. Because the legal consequences would be huge if this was found to be true. Would they risk it for a few cents per sale?
I wouldn't be surprised if either one of the following scenarios is true:
1) The claim is a lie
2) The 'control purchase' was not conducted properly or one of the buyers made a mistake
3) The sale was delayed due to a system error or some flagging and will show up sooner or later

You must have been very surprised to learn Enron was cooking the books. Giant companies cheat and lie all the time. They are seldom caught because there is negligible oversight. We have no access to sales data apart from what SS or other agencies tell us and they have a very good incentive to lie. The best we can do is conduct these risky unscientific experiments to try to get a little more data. I'm not saying OP's post proves anything but its one more data point than we had before and you're welcome to believe it or not. I'm tempted to try it myself but I earn so little from SS that it would cost nearly all my earnings to buy a single pack.

How can a claim on a forum be a data point, with no data. PokemonMaster is behind Stock Coalition and pushed the boycott Shutterstock protest. Giant companies or Enron have no connection in what SS does unless you want to believe guilt by generalization without facts. The answer is right above this. Screen shots, video of a buy, collect the data and if they are cheating us, take them to court. Everything you read on the internet is not true. Same goes for this forum.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #40 on:** February 17, 2024, 06:23 »

Quote from: yuriy on February 14, 2024, 14:09

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2024, 17:40
I find it hard to believe a major agency would so blatantly and obviously pocket royalties belong to the contributor. Because the legal consequences would be huge if this was found to be true. Would they risk it for a few cents per sale?
I wouldn't be surprised if either one of the following scenarios is true:
1) The claim is a lie
2) The 'control purchase' was not conducted properly or one of the buyers made a mistake
3) The sale was delayed due to a system error or some flagging and will show up sooner or later

You must have been very surprised to learn Enron was cooking the books. Giant companies cheat and lie all the time. They are seldom caught because there is negligible oversight. We have no access to sales data apart from what SS or other agencies tell us and they have a very good incentive to lie. The best we can do is conduct these risky unscientific experiments to try to get a little more data. I'm not saying OP's post proves anything but its one more data point than we had before and you're welcome to believe it or not. I'm tempted to try it myself but I earn so little from SS that it would cost nearly all my earnings to buy a single pack.

Cooking the books is something entirely different than pocketing money from stock sales. Enron used shady constructions with hundreds of daughter companies to pull up a smoke curtain. But anyone who carries out a properly conducted test purchase can check if SS actually steals sales. It would lead to million-dollar court claims if this was found to be true. No giant company would be THAT stupid.

offisapup · « **Reply #41 on:** February 17, 2024, 06:33 »

It's all speculation until it's proven of course. One of the reasons I'm (slightly) leaning towards believing the accusation is, I see about 150 downloads every month and that number hasn't gone up or gone down for over two years now. My port has grown by over 50 percent during the period. I find that sort of consistency a little difficult to believe unless there's some algorithmic/human control over how shutterstock distributes sales.

Of course, these are serious accusations and would need more than mere personal/anecdotal evidence to prove. But judging by how normalized sales on my port have been and how long I've been thinking about how it, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusations were indeed proven to be true.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #42 on:** February 18, 2024, 15:10 »

Quote from: offisapup on February 17, 2024, 06:33

It's all speculation until it's proven of course. One of the reasons I'm (slightly) leaning towards believing the accusation is, I see about 150 downloads every month and that number hasn't gone up or gone down for over two years now. My port has grown by over 50 percent during the period. I find that sort of consistency a little difficult to believe unless there's some algorithmic/human control over how shutterstock distributes sales.

Of course, these are serious accusations and would need more than mere personal/anecdotal evidence to prove. But judging by how normalized sales on my port have been and how long I've been thinking about how it, I wouldn't be surprised if the accusations were indeed proven to be true.

Why haven't my sales stayed the same? I've been doing this since 2008. I added files last year. I'm making now, in three months, what I used to make in 1 month. Maybe less. How come only some people are normalized?

"It's all speculation until it's proven of course." That would be something to help us all decide.

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 17, 2024, 06:23

Cooking the books is something entirely different than pocketing money from stock sales. Enron used shady constructions with hundreds of daughter companies to pull up a smoke curtain. But anyone who carries out a properly conducted test purchase can check if SS actually steals sales. It would lead to million-dollar court claims if this was found to be true. No giant company would be THAT stupid.

Well aside from the stupid or not part, because we've seen people like Holmes with Theranos technology, defraud some pretty smart investors and faked the whole company documentation on the device. Worldcom, Bernie Maddof, Tyco, frauds are not uncommon. But that has nothing to do, or associate with ShutterStock sales or commissions. Not the same at all.

Why doesn't someone or the group of + people here and all over, that just know, without any proof, that the claims are true, get together and run a documented, independent test? The truth is out there...

On the side for dessert: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting, and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.

In other terms like the rest of us use, if there's something wrong or illegal, it's not just the top heads that will roll. The accountants, the auditors, and many others are liable. There will be some explaining to do that will be very uncomfortable, and end with jail time.

And they would do all of that, and the risk, so they could steal dimes from the poor artists? Really?

Contemporary Dave · « **Reply #43 on:** February 19, 2024, 13:33 »

There may be another explanation. As an example of this, on Alamy, some sales do not show up in your sales history for ages. On one occasion, I noticed a shot of mine that was exclusive to Alamy had been used in a calendar. The actual sale did not show up for at least 3 months.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock steals sales. Control purchase (Read 3862 times)

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors