MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stop uploading to SS & join the action: JUN 15 -21  (Read 14245 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: June 09, 2020, 03:40 »
+3
You are right to some point but the options of the agencies are many more than cutting the royalty commission to contributors. When Istock/Getty had Vettas/Agency for 199$ each image, no subscription, and every sold image was giving a net commission of 12-15$(at 40%) and I was making over 10.000 downloads (blue flames) on some of them people where still supplying on Shutter,Bigstocks and the likes with ultra low subscriptions. What happened- a price war that still goes on today.

How did Istock react lowering drastically prices, establishing royalty targets (increasing every year to make everyone at last in the 15-30% range), jumping on the subs wagon......and creating sales for cents sometimes (still images and video). Many people left. I could not at that time as I was too deep entrenched in the exclusuivity and even with all the cuts the alternative to get 0.38 c per image sold when my net image sale was 10x times higher was not very enticing.

 Even so I tried for 3 months. In 2 months I was already at the 0.36$/level and making 1000$/month only on Shutter and 500$/month on Adobe. Still very very far of what I was making as an exclusive so I returned to the crown. But when I started with video I didn't want to fall into a trap again (content exclsuivity is not a problem if you can delete, contributor exclsuivity I would NOT recommend to anyone), so I uploaded to any agency that paid at least 30%.

How did others tackle the problem to people contributing their content to other sites that sell much cheaper. I think P5 has taken the best approach. Content exclusivity that pays 60% (very fair reward IMHO) and 40% for the rest but they leave us the freedom to establish our prices but they have to be in line with the competition.

At any moment P5 and Adobe will have to go subs on video too. They don't have another choice specially with Getty and Shutter on the field giving content away. I am ok with that, I understand that they will have to make this move so that anyone still shops there. As far as they mantain their commission structure I respect that decision.

What I will NEVER agree is a money grab under the excuse of market conditions that ends up in the owner pockets. If they need to lower the price to compete wr all share that cost , not on our backs only.

If you ask me and I think many top producers share my opinion, the only way to protect prices in some way is content (again not contributor ) exclusivity. With this you take out some of the power away from the clients to shift it back to agencies and contributors.

In resume "lowering commissions to Istock standards" is not the right approach. At least for me.

For years SS has been subsidizing Istock, most of the contributors I know used to upload their same portfolio to SS and IS, they used to get the big$$$ from SS and residual earnings from IS. IS pays a 15% flat rate to  their independent contributors. SS could not compete with a company who paid a fraction to the contributors that SS used to pay,
What happened today is the fault of the contributors who uploaded their work to every possible image bank regardless of how much they pay.
For SS to remain competitive they must lowered their commissions to Istock standards.
This is the raw reality.


« Reply #76 on: June 09, 2020, 03:41 »
+14
I disabled my portfolio immediately when I saw the reality of this news which I hadn't given much thought. Two days of selling for 10c and I had it. My portfolio was a small one so won't be doing nothing to the numbers of their catalog but it was a good one with 130.000 sales since 2008, and supposedly hundreds of thousands of dollars of earnings for Shutterstock to line their pockets over the years. And now I'm making sure that at least I won't be contributing a penny to their continued success from here on. Actually they made it extremely easy for me by slashing my income by 60-70% :) I prefer not selling at all and focusing on my full time job instead. I won't even make a big fuzz about it, it's just a no-brainer, haha.

I'm surprised actually that they made such a big move at once. Wouldn't you want to introduce the paycuts gradually to get people used to it? From a corporate perspective it seems to be such a ridiculous move to do it all at once!

And it has me suspecting that they are planning to come up with a less bad revenue system in a short while, just so we can all be really relieved and cheer on them and say "Thank you for listening to us, Shutterstock! The best agency and always has been! Thanks for caring about your contributors" while now accepting the new and "improved" 20c commissions. Everybody seems to win some (but actually only the agency wins, as they planned for 20c commissions all along).

Either way, I'm not coming back unless everything goes back exactly the way it was before OR better. I'll also take better. But for sure won't be accepting even a 1% paycut. No bargaining.

SOOO now you'll have to buy Luigi, the world famous pizza chef, elsewhere  ;D

« Reply #77 on: June 09, 2020, 05:04 »
0
Updated header post with new stuff.

« Reply #78 on: June 09, 2020, 05:24 »
+5
To prevent denial of service, when opting out on 15th,  i recommend not to do this simultaneously to smooth things out. Eg. Choose 12, 13, 14 or smth.

+added official ss reply with conclusion, see header posting.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 07:04 by NeonRobot »

« Reply #79 on: June 09, 2020, 09:33 »
0
+added official ss reply with conclusion, see header posting.
Looks like official reply was provided by third-party support, as a pre-written universal answer. How dare they?

« Reply #80 on: June 09, 2020, 09:42 »
+2
Done

« Reply #81 on: June 09, 2020, 10:55 »
+1
Have you tried  boycottshutterstock.com ?
Interesting, they were waiting...

« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2020, 10:59 »
0
Have you tried  boycottshutterstock.com ?
Interesting, they were waiting...

Provided site just redirecting to original ss.

« Reply #83 on: June 09, 2020, 11:13 »
+2
...Either way, I'm not coming back unless everything goes back exactly the way it was before OR better. I'll also take better. But for sure won't be accepting even a 1% paycut. No bargaining.

SOOO now you'll have to buy Luigi, the world famous pizza chef, elsewhere  ;D

Do you mind if I tweet about this - with a link to your Adobe Stock portfolio & a screenshot of Luigi from your port there? We have a #NoLongerAtShutterstock and #BoycottShutterstock "promo" campaign going :)

« Reply #84 on: June 09, 2020, 11:15 »
+2
...Either way, I'm not coming back unless everything goes back exactly the way it was before OR better. I'll also take better. But for sure won't be accepting even a 1% paycut. No bargaining.

SOOO now you'll have to buy Luigi, the world famous pizza chef, elsewhere  ;D

Do you mind if I tweet about this - with a link to your Adobe Stock portfolio & a screenshot of Luigi from your port there? We have a #NoLongerAtShutterstock and #BoycottShutterstock "promo" campaign going :)

Feel free!  :)

« Reply #85 on: June 09, 2020, 11:28 »
+2
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 11:32 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #86 on: June 09, 2020, 12:57 »
+4
Great!!!!

Boycott Shutterstock!

« Reply #87 on: June 09, 2020, 17:05 »
0
After 1 min of extra thinking... So how many stock contributors will be banned? 100? 500? Shutterstock will be fine without them. This action is... Boring. I won't change my avatar or whatever. Nor publicly cry. Take it, or leave it. But you can fight :) I will be thankful for your activity.

« Reply #88 on: June 10, 2020, 01:29 »
+5
After 1 min of extra thinking... So how many stock contributors will be banned? 100? 500? Shutterstock will be fine without them. This action is... Boring. I won't change my avatar or whatever. Nor publicly cry. Take it, or leave it. But you can fight :) I will be thankful for your activity.

The few people deactivating their portfolios now probably only has a slight symbolic value (an important one to send a signal nonetheless). Personally I'm not under the illusion that they will even take note of my action. I just don't want to support their success and I can easily afford it.

Many people however can't afford it. But they CAN afford to stop providing new quality content and focus on the other agencies instead. And this, I believe, will be the downfall of Shutterstock. This will have a MUCH bigger impact in the long run. Clients won't notice at first, but will have a harder and harder time finding relevant content that meets a certain standard and ultimately they'll stop renewing their subscriptions. Not as a protest or anything, simply because they'll want quality, and if it's not found on Shutterstock, they'll go elsewhere. No one wants to wade through tons of low quality content from hobbyists (which is now apparently being accepted all the time. What happened?!?). Photos will begin to look dated within a couple of years. For the clients it's all about quality, and if Shutterstock can't afford quality contributors anymore (or has made a decision not to), then it's the end. It won't happen in a day, and Stan will likely meet his bonus criteria. But it will have consequences and it won't be sustainable for the company in the long run.

« Reply #89 on: June 10, 2020, 01:35 »
+8
After 1 min of extra thinking... So how many stock contributors will be banned? 100? 500? Shutterstock will be fine without them. This action is... Boring. I won't change my avatar or whatever. Nor publicly cry. Take it, or leave it. But you can fight :) I will be thankful for your activity.
Just stop it. Do not continue. Also, don't yell.

Anyway, let me remind for all of us that there's a huge difference between claimed SS contributors and active SS contributors. Because, I guess, every third "portfolio" have no images at all. In 2016 active portfolios amount was counted, or leaked. It was about 30k. And now almost 10k signed the petition. This is a good number to deal with, as for me.

Shelma1

« Reply #90 on: June 10, 2020, 02:46 »
+2
eff it.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 03:17 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #91 on: June 10, 2020, 02:49 »
+4
Freepik and ss now have much in common  8)
And yes we must turn off imagery faster, coz they profit 3 times faster.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 03:00 by NeonRobot »


« Reply #92 on: June 10, 2020, 04:25 »
+4
Freepik and ss now have much in common  8)
And yes we must turn off imagery faster, coz they profit 3 times faster.

I have seen now that the group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285
has a new administrator: a brand ambassador of Freepik!!
Unacceptable for me.

Shelma1

« Reply #93 on: June 10, 2020, 04:29 »
+4
Yep. The group is going nowhere. I disabled my port.

« Reply #94 on: June 10, 2020, 05:09 »
+1
Freepik and ss now have much in common  8)
And yes we must turn off imagery faster, coz they profit 3 times faster.

I have seen now that the group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285
has a new administrator: a brand ambassador of Freepik!!
Unacceptable for me.

The new administrator, Antonio Gravante, is now the new ex-administrator having flounced off in a huff. Seems this group's admins have a shorter life expectancy than football managers.

Shelma1

« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2020, 05:10 »
0
Freepik and ss now have much in common  8)
And yes we must turn off imagery faster, coz they profit 3 times faster.

I have seen now that the group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285
has a new administrator: a brand ambassador of Freepik!!
Unacceptable for me.

The new administrator, Antonio Gravante, is now the new ex-administrator having flounced off in a huff. Seems this group's admins have a shorter life expectancy than football managers.

Give it a try and see how long you last.

« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2020, 05:26 »
0
I think the new review system takes care of the uploading issue anyway!

Just tested with a few editorials (that are elsewhere online already). All 20 rejected 17 seconds after hitting submit on them.

« Reply #97 on: June 10, 2020, 07:40 »
+5
People arent leaving SS because they think SS cares. We are leaving because we refuse to accept $.10 per image, and have levels reset every Jan. 1. No, a few people leaving wont be noticeable. Having a few million of good quality images leave holes in the collection might get noticed. Especially when they are replaced with batches of similars or stolen images. SS doesnt seem to mind that either, though.

« Reply #98 on: June 10, 2020, 07:41 »
+5
Freepik and ss now have much in common  8)
And yes we must turn off imagery faster, coz they profit 3 times faster.

I have seen now that the group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285
has a new administrator: a brand ambassador of Freepik!!
Unacceptable for me.

The new administrator, Antonio Gravante, is now the new ex-administrator having flounced off in a huff. Seems this group's admins have a shorter life expectancy than football managers.


Good. Freepik shouldnt be welcomed anywhere.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 09:04 by FastRacer »

« Reply #99 on: June 10, 2020, 14:58 »
+3
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 15:17 by NeonRobot »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2014 Views
Last post November 27, 2008, 19:59
by litifeta
20 Replies
7230 Views
Last post December 11, 2009, 15:25
by RacePhoto
22 Replies
6016 Views
Last post March 20, 2011, 15:43
by bobkeenan
10 Replies
3188 Views
Last post June 20, 2014, 08:22
by pixsol
23 Replies
3528 Views
Last post May 28, 2019, 08:19
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle