pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

With new earning structure made by Shutterstock will you disable your portfolio?

Disable photo and video
130 (47.3%)
Disable only photo
15 (5.5%)
Disable only video
21 (7.6%)
Disable nothing
76 (27.6%)
Quit Shutterstock
33 (12%)

Total Members Voted: 266

Author Topic: With new earning structure made by Shutterstock will you disable your portfolio?  (Read 33078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: June 03, 2020, 11:04 »
+3
Here's an idea: A petition stating that on 1st of July all the contributors that sign it will disable their portfolios for 3 days.
Now - for this to work it's necessary to reach big contributors with big portfolios, to really make an impact. It's a matter mostly of how to contact them, rather than them doing the 3-days pullout, because I saw on forums contributors with hundreds of thousands of images saying they will stop uploading. If the petition gathers only level 3-4 portfolios with few hundreds to few thousands images it's no good.
BUT, imagine that if we muster a total of 30% of the whole SS library to simply disappear for 3 days, it would definitely make an impact, like a strike. Surely, the big contributors will take a pay hit but they're already taking what SS served us, so I'm thinking it's worth it.
The meaning of this would be for SS to acknowledge the fact that without us they're not worth not even 10 cents and to listen.
I am doing stock full time, I have a portfolio of almost 50.000 images and some 2500 videos and I cannot simply disable my portfolio forever. I need to sustain my family and the SS money MUST come in. However, I stopped uploading and will not resume until all this is cleared up and we know where we stand. Also, I can and I am willing to take a 3 day even 5 day paycut, just to smack SS in the back of the head and let them know that they have to change their appalling royalties scheme. Or there can be strike 2, strike 3 and so on.
In my view, this would be more effective than some bad reviews on trustpilot and whatnot, but we have to get together on this somehow. I never made a petition or whatever is needed to put this idea in practice, therefore I encourage more learned people to do it.

So far i've been holding on without disabling my port just in case there is an organized movement for doing it together. So I'm in if this becomes a reality! (i'm not a big one tough, 16k images). I'm willing to take an even longer disabling. And if sales at Adobe continue to grow nicely i can consider it for forever as well
Now with the help of that facebook group it is possible to even personally contact some contribuors with tens and hundreds of thousands of files
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 11:10 by Desintegrator »


« Reply #201 on: June 03, 2020, 11:06 »
0
.

« Reply #202 on: June 03, 2020, 11:15 »
+2
Here's an idea: A petition stating that on 1st of July all the contributors that sign it will disable their portfolios for 3 days.
Now - for this to work it's necessary to reach big contributors with big portfolios, to really make an impact. It's a matter mostly of how to contact them, rather than them doing the 3-days pullout, because I saw on forums contributors with hundreds of thousands of images saying they will stop uploading. If the petition gathers only level 3-4 portfolios with few hundreds to few thousands images it's no good.
BUT, imagine that if we muster a total of 30% of the whole SS library to simply disappear for 3 days, it would definitely make an impact, like a strike. Surely, the big contributors will take a pay hit but they're already taking what SS served us, so I'm thinking it's worth it.
The meaning of this would be for SS to acknowledge the fact that without us they're not worth not even 10 cents and to listen.
I am doing stock full time, I have a portfolio of almost 50.000 images and some 2500 videos and I cannot simply disable my portfolio forever. I need to sustain my family and the SS money MUST come in. However, I stopped uploading and will not resume until all this is cleared up and we know where we stand. Also, I can and I am willing to take a 3 day even 5 day paycut, just to smack SS in the back of the head and let them know that they have to change their appalling royalties scheme. Or there can be strike 2, strike 3 and so on.
In my view, this would be more effective than some bad reviews on trustpilot and whatnot, but we have to get together on this somehow. I never made a petition or whatever is needed to put this idea in practice, therefore I encourage more learned people to do it.

I can't see a situation in which the top earners didn't have fore warning of this and cut their own deal, throwing us under the bus in the process. Part of our cut will pay for their deal.

Probably there are some special deals out there..
But in the facebook group so far i've seen people with 600k, 440k and 110k portfolios who have it the same as us and looking for option what they can do

« Reply #203 on: June 03, 2020, 11:33 »
+2
I've checked how many images are in SS databe this morning (empty search) and then again now, looks like about half million images are gone.

« Reply #204 on: June 03, 2020, 11:47 »
0
I've checked how many images are in SS databe this morning (empty search) and then again now, looks like about half million images are gone.
Does anyone know how many new images they were typically getting each day? Don't forget that total number would normally be shooting upwards too.

« Reply #205 on: June 03, 2020, 11:50 »
+2
Well, they used to have about 1.5 million new files  per week, so thats about 200.000 a day, looks like people are disabling portfolios enmasse, considering they are still probably adding new files to their database.

« Reply #206 on: June 03, 2020, 12:20 »
+3
Wind of portfolios being disabled has reached the investor community - in a Seeking Alpha article about Shutterstock's dividend. I submitted a comment explaining that the fury and exodus of portfolios is very real

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3579529-shutterstock-goes-ex-dividend-tomorrow

Anyone else want to help investors understand how Shutterstock's idiot move has damaged the company?

I chimed in on Seeking Alpha. Waiting for moderators to approve.

« Reply #207 on: June 03, 2020, 12:26 »
+5
For me today is the first time that Adobe will outperform SS in exactly 14 years of experience.

« Reply #208 on: June 03, 2020, 12:28 »
+2

I have more self respect for myself than to do this dance and neither am I a charity to a publicly traded greedy company.

^^Yes, that. Exactly that. ^^

« Reply #209 on: June 03, 2020, 12:31 »
+2
For me today is the first time that Adobe will outperform SS in exactly 14 years of experience.

May it be the first of hundreds or thousands of such days!

« Reply #210 on: June 03, 2020, 12:45 »
+5
For me today is the first time that Adobe will outperform SS in exactly 14 years of experience.

For me, adobe was better today than all 3 days of june at SS.

« Reply #211 on: June 03, 2020, 12:57 »
+7
Have disabled all files for now, if nothing changes in the next month may as well close the account. Was hoping enough people would disable to prompt some action from SS, but can understand not everyone can afford to, especially while other income sources for creators have dried up with the virus. Almost like they knew people would be desperate at the moment, quite evil really.

« Reply #212 on: June 03, 2020, 13:11 »
+5
Have disabled all files for now, if nothing changes in the next month may as well close the account. Was hoping enough people would disable to prompt some action from SS, but can understand not everyone can afford to, especially while other income sources for creators have dried up with the virus. Almost like they knew people would be desperate at the moment, quite evil really.

This will take time. Im sure many contributors dont even know whats going on. As their payouts happen more and more contributors will realize something is up and investigate. I mean look how many new MSG posts we have seen in the last week. I think we will see a lot more in the coming months. This is a grind. Not instant. Be patient and help us spread the word.

« Reply #213 on: June 03, 2020, 13:13 »
+12
Have disabled all files for now, if nothing changes in the next month may as well close the account. Was hoping enough people would disable to prompt some action from SS, but can understand not everyone can afford to, especially while other income sources for creators have dried up with the virus. Almost like they knew people would be desperate at the moment, quite evil really.

Don't forget there are a lot of people like me who are waiting for their final payout before disabling. I just got notified that my earnings were calculated, so as soon as the money turns up in PayPal, I'm disabling everything. The email said I'd receive the money by June 15th, so I think we can expect another wave of portfolios going down around mid-month.

ADH

« Reply #214 on: June 03, 2020, 13:22 »
+3
What SS has done has logic. For years, SS has been subsidizing IS. The Independent contributors have been producing and uploading to all portals, especially SS, IS, and Adobe. The money to stay in business came from SS sales, the misery IS paid them was the gravy and what they got from Adobe was marginal.
Now that SS has reduced its commissions, there is no point in producing since what is obtained from IS and Adobe is not enough to pay for the very smallest production.
Until June 1, IS could lower its prices in non exclusive materials to levels that SS could not compete, since IS pays 15% to independents, much less of what SS used to pay.
Therefore, in order to stay in the market, SS has had to match its commissions to what IS pays. I am sure that SS will be making some exceptions among its contributors or other ways will soon run out of quality material to sell.
The basic problem of SS is still there because IS can easily lower the commissions of independent materials to 10% to which SS will have to respond by doing the same. Eventually both portals will run out of quality assets from independents. But IS has exclusive portfolios that will contain quality and SS don't. Check mate.
Oringer was wrong about exclusivity in microstock, having a base of exclusive contributors is essential today to continue obtaining quality material for customers.
With this recent move of lowering SS commissions it is clear that SS has lost the war against IS and that it is a matter of time before SS is out of the game.

« Reply #215 on: June 03, 2020, 13:25 »
+2
Buonasera (mi scuserete se scrivo in italiano perch l'inglese proprio non lo capisco),
sono tentato di disabilitare tutto pure io anche se ho un portofolio piccolo perch VERGOGNOSO pagare 0.10 $ una foto come solo ISTOCKPHOTO faceva.
Per adesso mi limiter ad inviare solo materiale Editoriale che su ADOBE non posso caricare.
Seguo con interesse insieme a voi questo messaggio
Saluti dall'Italia

« Reply #216 on: June 03, 2020, 13:32 »
+1


You haven't checked out what's been going on.

Between last night and this morning - i.e. less than 24 hours - there were nearly 200,000 fewer images & illustrations on Shutterstock. Remember the boast up top that says they add 171,000 images daily. So the swing in less than 24 hours is at least 370k


I am afraid 200.000 fewer images in 24 hours is close to nothing if you compare it to the size of the database. 200.000 compared to over 326.400.000, that's 0.06%. And even if they keep losing that many every single day for the next week (when the wave of people disabling their ports now that they see how the new earning works) and then maybe again as many every day at the beginning of next month for another week, when people who, like me, want to give this a try and se ehow it works out, then that's 2.800.000 images they might lose. That's still just 0.86% of their database and really nothing, especialy if you mix in the numbers of images that are added daily - then they even come out almost even.


Shutterstock has just way too big of a database to really care about losing 1,2,3 or even 10 million images. Heck, they could probably even lose 50million images and it would not change anything for them.

« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 13:37 by Firn »


« Reply #217 on: June 03, 2020, 13:35 »
+10
Keep pulling your ports, while some of you think it won't make a difference because of how big their library is, it CAN make a difference. Especially if a lot of the best work is pulled. I use to buy images for work and I went to several stock sites to search. I worked for a big enough agency that it made no difference to the company where we sourced the images from. The only thing that matter is that our clients liked the options of images we show them. So following that logic, graphic designers will over time remember which stock sites have crappier images and go there less.

« Reply #218 on: June 03, 2020, 13:42 »
0
Keep pulling your ports, while some of you think it won't make a difference because of how big their library is, it CAN make a difference.

Yes, it can, but I believe in the end it might depend more on what images are being pulled than how many. But I think that the chance that it will make a difference is very unlikely. There are, as I've said many times, too many images in the database, and also too many really awesome ones. For every 50 awesome photographers who pull their port, there are still 500 remaining.

And, for me personally, the main reason to disable my port would not be whether it makes a difference to Shutterstock or not (because I am just a medicore photographer. I think they would not care if I left. My images are okay, but they aren't awesome professional-quality and SS is not making big money with me), but how much of a difference it makes to me and whether it's worth it for me. That still remains to be seen. Right now it looks like a 70% drop in income for me, but, for whatever reason, I am also experiencing a 50% drop in sale numbers, so right now I simply don't have the sale numbers to form any kind of opinion, as sales are to rare to really see how the indivicual licences might even out each other. IF it continues like this however, it simply won't be worth the effort for me to submit, because SS would fall to the rank of my lowest earning agencies and I don't bother with agencies that just earn me coffee money.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 13:45 by Firn »

« Reply #219 on: June 03, 2020, 13:53 »
+4
Just a little remark - on the positive side, this time:
In our German speaking forums, someone's started jotting down the total amount of images available on Shutterstock at a given time. (You get the data in real time, if you use the search box without entering a keyword.)
Between yesterday in the morning (MET) and now (1:52 am) - so, a little more than 12 hours - almost 140,000 images have been deleted or disabled. Not (yet) enough to hurt them, but sure for a clear signal in their direction. :)

And you can add that on a normal day it should be rising by about 200.000. Let's say, by 100.000 in half a day.

It has been a around 170.000 images that have been deactivated or deleted between yesterday and today, if my math is correctly, but despite people deleting/deactivating images, there are still more images added daily than deleted.
I seriously doubt that Shutterstock cares. The number has been growing way too fast anyways and you could tell from the yearly sales reports that it has no real influence on SS's income and contributors' earnings. More images in the database simply does not mean more customers/sales. Customers still buy the images they need and whether they have a selection of 1000 images of sunflowers or 10.000 images to pick from makes no difference to them. They'll find one suitable among 1000 already, they don't need a selection of 10.000.
That's why I feel like, as long as the overall number of images is still going up, SS will not really care. They might even welcome the slower growth. The recent changes in the similar image rules and, at least what I hear from other contributors, overall more stricter reviews, make it seem like gaining as many new images as possible is not their prefered strategy anymore.

From what I see, Sutterstock's image database schrunk with roughly 300.000 images since end of May, which is peanuts by the way.

I think you are right with your assumption on Shutterstock betting that their existing database, which is highly competitive in nearly every segment, is fine as it is to cover existing demand. The rejection issues that many contributors experienced over the last past months, and the passive attitude from Shutterstock on that matter really says a lot. They don't want that massive growth anymore. We all gave them a big fat cow and they decided it's time to milk it very aggressively.

For newer content and coverage of new trends, I think they will rely on selected top contributors by offering them different and more rewarding deals.

You have to take into account a couple of things. There is a pipeline of images in the review queue that were probably there before thus announcement. So you are seeing those approvals replace the deletions. Also, many contributors are still unaware of the changes SS made and will keep uploading until such a time a flag is raised. When they start to notice significantly lower payouts they will try to find out why and learn of Shutterstocks money grab. I think we will see a consistent reduction of quality assets over the coming months. Many contributors will stay. But I doubt these will be the ones who produce high value assets and know how to shoot on current trends and create marketable work. A good chunk of those kind of contributors will kill their ports. And the pipeline that will replace the quality work being deactivated will, for the most part, be garbage. Like the thousands of pot images, etc. For SS to retain good commercially viable content they will be forced to make special deals, like Getty did with Yuri. So while we may not see massive reduction in collection count we will see a massive reduction in collection quality, minus the special deal ports.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 13:57 by Mantis »

« Reply #220 on: June 03, 2020, 14:23 »
+2
I disabled my videos and will go for exclusivity on pond5 as soon as shutterstock clears all my videos.

Thats precisely what I have in mind too.

Seeing that one sale for 10 cent (before I disabled both portfolios) hurts so much - I dont want to do this. Otherwise itll ruin my self-esteem.
And this also means an end to those ridiculous rejections over the last weeks. Content approved by Adobe with no problems all got rejected by SS which still made me quite angry every time.
So that problem will be solved as well when leaving SS for good.

If they pay crap, they get crap.

Shelma1

« Reply #221 on: June 03, 2020, 14:59 »
+5
How about a Twitter campaign where everyone posts photos, videos and illustrations that are #NoLongerOnShutterstock ? You could include a link to where the work is still available.

This would allow many more people to get involved, because you dont have to close your account or turn your port off, just delete one item. Imagine if thousands of people did this all on the same day.

Chichikov

« Reply #222 on: June 03, 2020, 15:24 »
0
Buonasera (mi scuserete se scrivo in italiano perch l'inglese proprio non lo capisco),
sono tentato di disabilitare tutto pure io anche se ho un portofolio piccolo perch VERGOGNOSO pagare 0.10 $ una foto come solo ISTOCKPHOTO faceva.
Per adesso mi limiter ad inviare solo materiale Editoriale che su ADOBE non posso caricare.
Seguo con interesse insieme a voi questo messaggio
Saluti dall'Italia

Non meritano neanche l'editoriale. Vuoi veramente vendere editoriale per 10 ?
Piuttosto prova con Alamy.
Anche Depositphotos, Dreamstime e 123RF accettano l'editoriale, per le vendite sono poche.

« Reply #223 on: June 03, 2020, 15:38 »
+3
Buyers need to be warned not to invest in subscriptions as SS's collection is going to be a lot weaker in the coming months.

« Reply #224 on: June 03, 2020, 16:06 »
+1
Have disabled all files for now, if nothing changes in the next month may as well close the account. Was hoping enough people would disable to prompt some action from SS, but can understand not everyone can afford to, especially while other income sources for creators have dried up with the virus. Almost like they knew people would be desperate at the moment, quite evil really.

Don't forget there are a lot of people like me who are waiting for their final payout before disabling. I just got notified that my earnings were calculated, so as soon as the money turns up in PayPal, I'm disabling everything. The email said I'd receive the money by June 15th, so I think we can expect another wave of portfolios going down around mid-month.

As another data point, I disabled my portfolio on Sunday and I received the "earnings calculated" email this morning. I expect Shutterstock to pay me as they always have. They make idiot policies, but they're not cheats. I can understand the nervousness - and I wouldn't post rude things or links to other agencies in my portfolio header - but I think they'l do the right thing and pay what they owe.

I received the PayPal email this morning (June 4)
« Last Edit: June 04, 2020, 13:45 by Jo Ann Snover »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
7139 Views
Last post January 12, 2009, 13:23
by jsnover
1 Replies
1848 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:11
by OM
11 Replies
3952 Views
Last post April 13, 2015, 23:58
by Me
14 Replies
6518 Views
Last post February 05, 2021, 11:18
by Uncle Pete
3 Replies
2108 Views
Last post May 27, 2020, 10:59
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle