pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: We are having some impact  (Read 21680 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2020, 04:56 »
+7
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:


June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week


The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035  images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.

only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too

You ask for evidence but dont look for yourself: just go the Search page Its not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the added weekly was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).

I dont know what constitutes a tsunami in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?


what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks


 from numbers displayed above:

June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week

so  1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online

Where do you have this numbers? Try this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview#gid=0

According to this chart, the Shutterstock library has shrunk by 6.5 million assets since June 1. And since there have still been approximately 1 million uploads per week, that means at least 8.5 million assets have been removed.

Normally this would be a huge blow to an agency...heck, Freepik has fewer images than this, so their entire library would be gone.

But Shutterstock has been planning a move like this for years, limiting upload amounts and rejecting content from established contributors repeatedly while accepting huge portfolios of similars all in one day. This limits the impact a collective action can have because it limits the number of files each of us owns. How many of us got fed up with rejections or onerous vector uploading demands and falling income because of new algorithms?

Its now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. Thats why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.

I think back to the handful of people here who repeatedly rolled their eyes at complaints about rejections and told everyone to just do better work and wonder whether some of them are Shutterstock employees.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 04:59 by Shelma1 »


Les

« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2020, 06:20 »
+2
I wouldn't be so fixated on the total count of images. If anything, accepting large lots of inferior and similar images will be more detrimental to an agency. 

« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2020, 07:07 »
0
Its now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. Thats why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.

What's the story about this boycottshutterstock.com domain? It's funny that it redirects to the main Shutterstock homepage instead of showing some neutral placeholder not connected to SS itself.

Shelma1

« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2020, 07:10 »
+3
Its now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. Thats why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.

What's the story about this boycottshutterstock.com domain? It's funny that it redirects to the main Shutterstock homepage instead of showing some neutral placeholder not connected to SS itself.

Yes...Shutterstock bought the domain and pointed it to the Shutterstock site so contributors couldn't buy it.

« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2020, 07:26 »
+5
I wouldn't be so fixated on the total count of images. If anything, accepting large lots of inferior and similar images will be more detrimental to an agency.

Agree, the strength of the database is its quality and variety and there's no way a few big agencies can create that. Quality and variety is what Shutterstock is now losing. 

« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2020, 08:34 »
+4
Has anyone noticed A LOT of random people spamming the shutterstock hashtag on twitter posting their portfolio (most of the portfolios are empty) and many (very badly written) paid articles talking about how awesome SS is

Examples for your enjoyment

https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk


« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2020, 08:55 »
+9
Maybee some kind of counter-offensive by shutterstock-hired Indians, just like they hired them for image reviewing.

« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2020, 09:09 »
+4
Maybee some kind of counter-offensive by shutterstock-hired Indians, just like they hired them for image reviewing.

You know that wherever possible they will be doing some sort of brand damage countermeasures.

« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2020, 09:55 »
+5
I update the data

Look this difference:

June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
June 16- 321.860.122 images, 969.833 new images per week

Snow

« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2020, 10:53 »
+2
Maybee some kind of counter-offensive by shutterstock-hired Indians, just like they hired them for image reviewing.

Yeah most likely!
I guess they have to start promoting their portfolio's before they run out of buyers ;)

Should our actions have no effect on SS it will certainly have an effect elsewhere with a lot better RPD!

I am still very disappointed in seeing those who I once admired, not only as stock contributors but also as artists not taking any action. They can afford it much more then many of us. Maybe they don't care and take the money for what it is. Still it's quite disrespectful against those who try fight for all contributors or even those who live from this income.

It is what it is right, take care peeps!

« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2020, 11:18 »
+28
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"

« Reply #36 on: June 16, 2020, 11:22 »
+6
I wonder how many more such cases are out there. You should tell him to spread the word among his fellow designer friends.

« Reply #37 on: June 16, 2020, 23:39 »
+1
Steve, I'm curious as to what your aim is here with the devil's advocate position. If not portfolio deactivation, what do you suggest is the most constructive course of action for artists who don't want to accept 10 cent commissions for their work?  I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I've missed your answer to this as there has been so much to follow in recent days, I'm just honestly confused about your stance on this issue.
thanks for your response, certainly not disrespectful   - while i deplore SS's moves, i just don't see a boycott as a useful response. that aside, i try mostly to respond to poor logic or statistics on any side -- too many claims here use faulty statistics or logic - maker your(their) arguments with  valid facts & analysis to build a stronger case

« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2020, 01:15 »
+9
What more facts do you need, sub sales went from 0.38$ to 0,10$, 0,12$, 0,14$, how is that faulty statistics, can you even calculate??

« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2020, 01:20 »
+6
The boycott has it's use. I also think the damage for them in the short term will be limited but their action will only accelerate the loss of leadership they had in the last year. They follow the path in the exact same pattern as Getty did. Gettyimages, once the only sheriff in town, is the third global player and loosing ground by the day. It would not surprise me if they would one day dissapear eaten by a bigger fish as their debt rating is really bad.

Shutterstock is financially in a much better position than Getty but Mr Oringer sees that there is only stagnation or even decrease in the days ahead. He wants to get out of the business he created and cash in as much as possible for his over 40+% shares. His choice has been to put the strawman we all know in the cockpit and pull the strings without loosing face. He could ramp up prices and loose customers or cut commissions and loose contributors. He decided for the last for different reasons and he might be right in that choice in the short term to push the stock value up.

But even if most of the contributors stay I have my big doubt that the large producers will keep betting on Shutter. They will slowly or faster move to other options the same way most of the best contributors did when Getty pushed the screws. Remember that buyers follow content and that content is already shifting to other sites right now. This will only accelerate.

For this the boycott is very useful. People are aware of the situation, they calculate their costs in time and money to produce content. Many will stay and many won't. But what is sure is that most those producers leaving won't stop their activity and will regularly give fresh content to the other competing sites. It seems Adobe and P5 will benefit the most. One day those two might take the same approach that once Mr Getty and Mr Oringer companies did. When that day arrives contributors will have to take again their decisions.


thanks for your response, certainly not disrespectful   - while i deplore SS's moves, i just don't see a boycott as a useful response. that aside, i try mostly to respond to poor logic or statistics on any side -- too many claims here use faulty statistics or logic - maker your(their) arguments with  valid facts & analysis to build a stronger case

whtvr2

« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2020, 02:01 »
0
Quote
But even if most of the contributors stay I have my big doubt that the large producers will keep betting on Shutter.

We do not know what sells the most, what deals SS might got atm and where theya re heading. Plus thousands of editorial snap shooters can easily justify a 0.10 payment "per click" return. Especially if it is a smartphone click. This might be end up as a good thing pushing other agencies to reject more or adapting SS pricing and giving the benefit to contributors to apply to more niche agencies thus getting better before getting payed better. If some thousands of microstock parachuters remain in SS or others for pennies or quit because of pennies, that is good news.

« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2020, 04:55 »
+5
Strange, I see a significant revival of sales with royalties within the range of 2-3 dollars  at DT and 123RF, where I don't upload from ages. Anyone else?  Could be that SS customers are looking elsewhere?
Better many piranhas than a shark?


« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2020, 07:55 »
0
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"


Can I use this in a tweet? I dont have to use your name.

« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2020, 08:09 »
0
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"


How did the person get your email address?

« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2020, 08:17 »
+1
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"

yes you can.


Can I use this in a tweet? I dont have to use your name.

« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2020, 08:22 »
0
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"

I use my real name on my SS portfolio and in the About Me page I have a link to the (free with your CC subscription) my Adobe Portfolio where I have my contact details.

How did the person get your email address?

« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2020, 12:18 »
+9
What would hurt even more is losing buyers and I am doing my best to inform the buyers I personally know to turn their back on SS! after fifteen years with them I know quite a few!

« Reply #47 on: June 17, 2020, 13:16 »
0
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"

yes you can.


Can I use this in a tweet? I dont have to use your name.


Thanks! Too long to Tweet, but I posted it on the Coalition fb page.

« Reply #48 on: June 17, 2020, 13:28 »
+1
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.

Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"

yes you can.


Can I use this in a tweet? I dont have to use your name.


Thanks! Too long to Tweet, but I posted it on the Coalition fb page.

Thanks  - I had already done that - but a second post doesn't hurt. and Jo Ann tweeted it.

« Reply #49 on: June 17, 2020, 14:05 »
+8
New update:

June 16- 321.860.122 images, 969.833 new images per week
June 17- 318.526.227 images, 920.525 new images per week (updated)

Things are becaming harder and harder for SS


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
78 Replies
17758 Views
Last post December 21, 2007, 19:42
by madelaide
5 Replies
3195 Views
Last post March 23, 2008, 15:42
by madelaide
6 Replies
3427 Views
Last post May 03, 2008, 07:06
by a.k.a.-tom
9 Replies
4487 Views
Last post August 18, 2013, 21:34
by RetroColoring.com
39 Replies
2695 Views
Last post August 14, 2020, 14:14
by farbled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle