Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2015, 04:47

Quote from: Chichikov on December 03, 2015, 01:21

I think that their next step will be to accept any crap, like did iStock about one year ago�

You mean this crap?
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

Until cannabis is legalised, users will risk brain damage�

I think they are at more health risk from the fried potatos!

Quote from: Mrblues101 on December 03, 2015, 14:00

I think that this is part of the natural evolution of a microstock company, first they are flexible with aceptance because they need a huge number of images to compete in the market, but when they have a decent gallery, then they get more rigorous with the acceptance, and accept only the elite ones.

In the other hand, it is also a good way to control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income.

I really think that this is not a bad new at all.

But what's happening is the very opposite of what you suggest above.
First of all iStock had high standards, then dropped them almost totally, then SS had high standards, then their inspection was all over the place, now they are lowering the entry standard.
So I don't see how this can "control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income". Au contraire.

Yes.  Exactly.  They are getting LESS selective and the whole thing is going to s*it.

Well, this doesn't absolutely mean the review standards have changed. They're just allowing more people to submit.

Either way, this will mean a spike in collection growth which may be a good thing for some contributors. If SS gets flooded with mediocre images more buyers may be headed back to macro sites and spend more money to save time and frustration.

It is good for those who leave Shutterstock. SS  are choosing quantity over quality which is the last thing anybody needs. The world is saturated with low quality images and SS is becoming a cheap store,  losing its credibility.

....Because obviously they want a LOT of images and then they will sell them cheaply  in HUGE subscription packages. 

this doesnt upset me at all, the review process is still the same so if you manage to crap out one good image and get accepted, it could still be that your next 1000 will all be rejected

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 03, 2015, 23:29

If SS gets flooded with mediocre images more buyers may be headed back to macro sites and spend more money to save time and frustration.

SS has always been flooded with mediocre images, difference was a few years ago it was viable for pro's to submit work to Micro and get a decent return on investment within a year or two. Today is a very different story, high production images are simply not paying for themselves anymore. Your right but the effect will be two fold, buyers heading to Macro to save time, and the talent moving work to Macro due to the broken business model.

SS pricing strategy has always been pretty ruthless, personally I can't see how this business model has any longevity for buyers or suppliers.

The business model for microstock was always that amateur photographers could submit images and get paid for them (for not a lot of money). Pro photographers shooting high production images was never part of the business model, it was pro photographers who decided to cash in on the exposure to the market, not the business model of microstock. So really, not so surprising that pros can't make a decent return any more.

I disagree that this business model doesn't have any longevity...there are still small to medium sized companies who still can't afford to spend $60-100 per image; in fact, with the decline in the overall economy, even less so today than 9 years ago. But it will present a problem in terms of time spent wading through the crap just to find a decent image.

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on December 04, 2015, 06:26

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 03, 2015, 23:29

If SS gets flooded with mediocre images more buyers may be headed back to macro sites and spend more money to save time and frustration.

SS has always been flooded with mediocre images, difference was a few years ago it was viable for pro's to submit work to Micro and get a decent return on investment within a year or two. Today is a very different story, high production images are simply not paying for themselves anymore. Your right but the effect will be two fold, buyers heading to Macro to save time, and the talent moving work to Macro due to the broken business model.

SS pricing strategy has always been pretty ruthless, personally I can't see how this business model has any longevity for buyers or suppliers.

The business model for microstock was always that amateur photographers could submit images and get paid for them (for not a lot of money). Pro photographers shooting high production images was never part of the business model, it was pro photographers who decided to cash in on the exposure to the market, not the business model of microstock. So really, not so surprising that pros can't make a decent return any more.

I disagree that this business model doesn't have any longevity...there are still small to medium sized companies who still can't afford to spend $60-100 per image; in fact, with the decline in the overall economy, even less so today than 9 years ago. But it will present a problem in terms of time spent wading through the crap just to find a decent image.

One thing to consider is that the proportion of demand to growth is not equal and that mediocracy sells.  As collection size grows dramatically and demand remains relatively flat (maybe a slight uptick) we will see erosion of sales. It is inevitable. Those small companies will indeed keep leveraging MS but our ROI will continue to be negatively impacted over time, even if we keep uploading.

Lots of openings for human reviewers (See the Content category):

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings

 

not surprising.  this is as i said, no one is , not even adobe , is asking for 7/10 admission criterion.
ss is not lossening the reins, but more in retaining market exposure and preventing the runoff to
adobe.  if anyone can submitting everything to fotolia, and gawd, i took a look at my work
which i used to have at fotolia and i am shocked today i could even do such bad work
that passed ft and failed rightly so at is and ss. and that was years ago before adobe.

now, there is a need for human reviewers at ss, in order to trim the larger incoming works of new people. as for the old established ppl who already have maintained a high %age of approval,
i see the auto-review being used.

this , or else, you risk losing new contributors to adobe. so, i see this as a smart move
for ss. and also a smart move for contributors too. as i said, with a higher competition of newbies and oldies, you can only profit from this if ss do not lose out to adobe.

why waste time wishing ss lose to adobe? you did that once with canva, veer, stocksy,etc..
none of these have the resume history of earning money like ss does for us.

i still go where the money is now... and it is still ss. love or hate them...only ss puts $$$ in my pocket each month.

After Shtterstock's new agreement update nothing really matters if you upload images onto Shutterstock as a contributor.   I will never put another new image or file on Shutterstock for as long as I live. I've been on there 9 years and I'm not letting a couple hundred each month lure me into uploading any new images onto such an evil company! Someday someone braver then me will spill the beans. Good luck to anyone uploading onto Shutterstock.

Evil???  No.

It's based on Fotolia's  model.

With this easy entry, many new submitters will wind up with very small portfolios.  Even with the reduced minimum payout, this will mean long periods of Shutterstock getting to keep the royalties for a long time.

Let's face it, punters who can only get one out of 10 will be thrilled to have a few puny sales.  "Look, I'm a professional now!"

As we can see, SS is flooded with crap produced by well established contributors.

Hey, speak for yourself! 

Who are you defending? Yourself  or ALL "established contributors"? 

I'm not defending anybody. Just pulling your chain� and very successfully, it seems.

LOL!!!!

Quote from: MisterElements on December 04, 2015, 12:08

After Shtterstock's new agreement update nothing really matters if you upload images onto Shutterstock as a contributor.   I will never put another new image or file on Shutterstock for as long as I live. I've been on there 9 years and I'm not letting a couple hundred each month lure me into uploading any new images onto such an evil company! Someday someone braver then me will spill the beans. Good luck to anyone uploading onto Shutterstock.

Evil???  No.

evil??? no!!!  weed is not evil 
in a nutshell, how do you expect someone on weed to pass 7/10
they want weed photos. they like weed. the more weed contributors the merrier the office will be,
and the less anal the reviewer like atilla and family will be.

so all in all, a win for ss, a win for reviewer atilla and family, a win for you and me
there will be less need to weed out the good and the bad and the ugly