Quote from: CommuniCat on June 28, 2020, 13:21

Everyone is in the same boat. Nobody can do without the money, but Shutterstock is pulling the whole industry down. It's imperative, especially for video, that we get our files onto Pond5 and off SS.

Pond5 is a major player in video licensing. If you go exclusive, they get your files back onto Adobe and onto Vimeo stock. You get 60% of revenue. If you do the maths, you realise that you don't lose much from an Adobe perspective. It's earnings comparable.

Quite simply no its not.  P5 does not sell as much full stop.

Most of us ALREADY have our all files on P5 and have done for many years.  non exclusive we get 40% not 60% but that in no way makes up for the low sales.
You don't have to believe me, look at the monthly survey graph on this very site - P5 is one of those tiny lines right down the bottom amongst such giants as DT and 123RF in terms of earnings.
The P5 forum isnt exactly full of people praising how well sales have taken off and how well exclusive is doing for them either.

If a site by volume sells only about 10% per month vs another site than a 60 to 40% difference in commission is negligible and makes almost zero difference to the final totals.

The maths for me (and looking at the graphs, others) is very simply.  Pulling videos off SS and AS to go P5 only will lose us many hundreds of dollars per month in lost revenue.  Thats the brutal reality here.

Quote

So you're telling me it's much better to keep supporting SS and kill the whole industry because other agencies will have to follow, make a few hundred bucks the next couple of months until it gets

Im not convinced you reside in the real world.  You havent explained how if, having guaranteed $0.00 income from Shutterstock you're supposed to buy anything with that?  Are there landlords im unaware of that accept principle in lieu of rent money?  Do supermarkets have an option to pay with good will instead of money?

If you pull a portfolio you are guaranteeing an in come of 0.  Nothing.  No money.  No payout. Nothing goes into the bank.

If you're also deluded enough to think SS will care (or even notice) an absolutely miniscule number of contributors pulling an utterly insignificant amount of media off the site then by all means go ahead.  The problem is you think you matter or are somehow important to them.  You're not.  None of us are.  You can do all you want but it isnt going to change their policy which has been costed, planned and modelled.
So its your choice whether you want to accept a guarantee of no money and buy food with it or settle for a not-ideal but some money instead.
But to think anything will change due to actions is utterly deluded.

Negative comments because if everyone had sacrificed a few weeks of income SS would have been forced to roll back their draconian royalty cuts and we'd ALL be back to higher royalties.

Instead, the vast majority stayed, accepting a big loss this year and an even bigger loss come January, rather than a temporary, much smaller loss for a few weeks in June. We own the content. The agencies are nothing without us. But whatevs.

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 30, 2020, 08:42

Negative comments because if everyone had sacrificed a few weeks of income SS would have been forced to roll back their draconian royalty cuts and we'd ALL be back to higher royalties.

but that was NEVER going to happen - boycotts never get that sort of cooperation and a boycott with a publicly stated end date tells the boycotted they can ride it out. In addition, the vast majority of contributors likely never even knew there was a boycott. 


that still doesnt excuse the negative comments and ad hominem attacks on those who think differently

Quote

Instead, the vast majority stayed, accepting a big loss this year and an even bigger loss come January, rather than a temporary, much smaller loss for a few weeks in June. We own the content. The agencies are nothing without us. But whatevs.

and again, you're mis-stating the case by presenting it as either /or rather than a large loss for everyone AND a slightly larger loss for boycotters

Quote from: cascoly on August 31, 2020, 16:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 30, 2020, 08:42

Negative comments because if everyone had sacrificed a few weeks of income SS would have been forced to roll back their draconian royalty cuts and we'd ALL be back to higher royalties.

but that was NEVER going to happen - boycotts never get that sort of cooperation and a boycott with a publicly stated end date tells the boycotted they can ride it out. In addition, the vast majority of contributors likely never even knew there was a boycott. 


that still doesnt excuse the negative comments and ad hominem attacks on those who think differently

Quote

Instead, the vast majority stayed, accepting a big loss this year and an even bigger loss come January, rather than a temporary, much smaller loss for a few weeks in June. We own the content. The agencies are nothing without us. But whatevs.

and again, you're mis-stating the case by presenting it as either /or rather than a large loss for everyone AND a slightly larger loss for boycotters

Well, today's a sad day for me. I just read in the Stock Coalition Facebook group that your work is featured in the Coalition Collection on Pond5. You argue against boycotting and haven't had much nice to say about the Coalition, but you stepped right up to take advantage of the deal they got with Pond5.

So now someone who thinks boycotting Shutterstock is useless reaps the reward of the hard work done by others who sacrificed their income and worked their butts off to try to make a difference.

From now out I'm looking out for number one and nobody else. Because what's the point if my work benefits someone like you? I gave up thousands of dollars in income so YOUR work could be featured while you continue making money on Shutterstock? Ehf that.