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 33109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #300 on: June 06, 2020, 19:23 »
+9
Shutterstock have split the war on it's contributors into two battles. Now they take on the 1 2 3 and 4s and in January they take on the 5 and 6s.  Currently the 5 and 6 groups have not enough to gain and to much to lose by pulling their ports now.  By the time January comes they will hope that there not be enough impetus left from the battle with the 1 2 3 4 to assist the 5 and 6s.  Taking on the 5 and 6s will be tough, but that is where the big money is made, and they don't want 10s of thousands of 1 2 3 and 4s getting in their way.
I know a lot of people who're in the 5th level (including myself) and who already disabled their ports or are currently planning to. (Might even be easier for them than for somebody being rather new to the industry, as most of them already sell through other agencies as well.) Also, someone who's in level 6 for sure just announced he's going to disable all of his 400,000 images on Monday. :)


« Reply #301 on: June 06, 2020, 19:47 »
+4
Also, someone who's in level 6 for sure just announced he's going to disable all of his 400,000 images on Monday. :)

Wow, that's great. We need contributors like that joining the fight. Hope he follows through.

« Reply #302 on: June 06, 2020, 20:19 »
0
Shutterstock have split the war on it's contributors into two battles. Now they take on the 1 2 3 and 4s and in January they take on the 5 and 6s.  Currently the 5 and 6 groups have not enough to gain and to much to lose by pulling their ports now.  By the time January comes they will hope that there not be enough impetus left from the battle with the 1 2 3 4 to assist the 5 and 6s.  Taking on the 5 and 6s will be tough, but that is where the big money is made, and they don't want 10s of thousands of 1 2 3 and 4s getting in their way.
I know a lot of people who're in the 5th level (including myself) and who already disabled their ports or are currently planning to. (Might even be easier for them than for somebody being rather new to the industry, as most of them already sell through other agencies as well.) Also, someone who's in level 6 for sure just announced he's going to disable all of his 400,000 images on Monday. :)

It makes sense for them to do it now while they have everybody else on board.  No point in letting the oppositions chariots run over the foot soldiers while the cavalry  sit back and calculate their RPD , it will be a shock to Shutterstock though if the majority do it, only then can the battle be won. And thank you and each and every one of them it may restore my faith in humanity.

« Reply #303 on: June 06, 2020, 22:41 »
+7
... it may restore my faith in humanity.
:)
If this is even possible, it's worth each single day of my port being down. Humanity - and the entire world for that matter - is in a pretty sad state right now. But there's also progress being made on several fronts and that's quite something. So let's just try and fight for a better future! For everyone.

« Reply #304 on: June 06, 2020, 23:40 »
+16
I came here to find information on what was happening at SS and because of that I disabled my portfolio of 6500 images 5 minutes after first 10 cent sale. I was a level 5 contributor and it was a painful thing to do but after reading the forum's here and at SS i knew it had to be done and a strong message had to be sent to this boardroom about who really owns their products.
I hope all who are involved also disable/delete their portfolios on SS and move on to better things, as of the first of June SS has forced thousands of people just like me to literally start working for every business they are competing against and in the same market.
Personally i think that its a done deal that SS will never retract on this and are just waiting to see what the fallout does over time, most of the board members are from pre public ownership and have been in the industry for a long time and have seen when other stock agencies tanked like this for exactly the same reasons. So they are well aware that this was going to happen i think SS arose from the ashes of Istock anyway.

Anyways just wanted to show my support to you all and let you know there are more people with you than you think.

Above all remember there is also a global health pandemic to deal with so keep yourself and your loved ones as safe as you can.

« Reply #305 on: June 07, 2020, 01:28 »
+1
For now, I think disabling my portfolio would be a foot shot. But what I have already done is stop uploading photos to SS, not one more.
This if done massively will create a serious problem for SS since his images will be old and especially the editorial photos will be out of date.

« Reply #306 on: June 07, 2020, 03:18 »
0
If the thumbnails are still showing on shutterstock's site, wonder if we should make DMCA Takedowns for each image? :D

« Reply #307 on: June 07, 2020, 06:34 »
+3
JOIN THE FORCES:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/stop-uploading-to-ss-join-the-action/



ps for your info: 73 dumb heads will do nothing.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2020, 06:36 by spacedrone808 »


« Reply #309 on: June 07, 2020, 12:57 »
+2
You can check it out on tueasdy, he's on SS by his name, easy to find his port

« Reply #310 on: June 07, 2020, 13:00 »
+3
You can check it out on tueasdy, he's on SS by his name, easy to find his port

Choke this fukcing company till it collapses.  Sick of this Corp greed

« Reply #311 on: June 07, 2020, 23:20 »
0

Chichikov

« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 01:26 by Chichikov »

« Reply #313 on: June 08, 2020, 01:36 »
+8
Two more large portfolios are on their way out (I did ask both of them for their OK to tweet about it)

Iakov Filimonov

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1269876164073418753

Samo Trebizan

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1269879193392656384

« Reply #314 on: June 08, 2020, 09:28 »
+4
I disabled my port today. I didn't have many images (I had quit uploading years ago), so it was a drop in the bucket and small potatoes compared to the major leaguers at SS. However, I had steady performers that had been earning consistent sales year in and year out since they were uploaded 10 years ago and did so well that they were copied to hell and back by other contributors.

« Reply #315 on: June 08, 2020, 10:29 »
+1
It's really encouraging to see all those big timers doing that, quite inspiring.



« Reply #317 on: June 08, 2020, 12:02 »
+2

"together we stand, divided we fall" (cit.)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285

« Reply #318 on: June 09, 2020, 06:54 »
+2

anon20200611

« Reply #319 on: June 09, 2020, 08:06 »
0
my two cents on the 10 cents.
https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/
enjoy  :)

Quote
For better or worse? Obviously for worse, and (surprise, surprise) the news were broken out just a few days before.
In a nutshell: if until the end of May 2020 my basic income was 36 cents/download, now Shuttestock has decreed that 10 cents/download must be enough.
Sure, in case of special sales I might still get something more but anyway less than half as before.

This person is a "Master Physicist" with extra expertise in statistics (like for example, a hotdog with extra cheese inside). She decided to join the even higher than physics, academic circle of doing stock photography, and apparently after all that is being said, still can't pick up a calculator and do some basic 2nd grade mathematics to her earning stats to determine the actual gain or loss from all this. She thinks that because the earlier Tier 3, $0.36 minimum, was decreased to a new $0.1 minimum in her level 4 (?), that her earnings are down -75%. In reality those earnings, from the people that still have some decency left inside of them are calculated to be -5% or -10% or even -20% in smaller portfolios, but still with a chance of increasing the rpd and gaining more from EL's and OD's. So the tier system could in reality be fair unless accurate data shows otherwise.

What is not fair in the system is the upcoming January reset. But by the over reaction of people like her about the tier system, the voice of the reasonable contributors can't be heard.

For small contributors that are just starting out, get educated and start calculating your RPD and stop reading nonsense written by illiterate people.

Visit this thread and do some accurate calculations to help the effort:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/accurate-calculations-of-old-rpd-vs-june-rpd-(constant-updates)/

After all, each Shutterstock contributor must be reminded that by clicking "I Agree" they have agreed to let Shutterstock determine the contributor rates as they wish at any given time. There is nothing unethical. The January reset is still something that could be negotiated, but certainly not by the contributors that act like animals and lowering the average contributor image to that level.

« Reply #320 on: June 09, 2020, 08:16 »
0
my two cents on the 10 cents.
https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/
enjoy  :)

Quote
For better or worse? Obviously for worse, and (surprise, surprise) the news were broken out just a few days before.
In a nutshell: if until the end of May 2020 my basic income was 36 cents/download, now Shuttestock has decreed that 10 cents/download must be enough.
Sure, in case of special sales I might still get something more but anyway less than half as before.

This person is a "Master Physicist" with extra expertise in statistics (like for example, a hotdog with extra cheese inside). She decided to join the even higher than physics, academic circle of doing stock photography, and apparently after all that is being said, still can't pick up a calculator and do some basic 2nd grade mathematics to her earning stats to determine the actual gain or loss from all this. She thinks that because the earlier Tier 3, $0.36 minimum, was decreased to a new $0.1 minimum in her level 4 (?), that her earnings are down -75%. In reality those earnings, from the people that still have some decency left inside of them are calculated to be -5% or -10% or even -20% in smaller portfolios, but still with a chance of increasing the rpd and gaining more from EL's and OD's. So the tier system could in reality be fair unless accurate data shows otherwise.

What is not fair in the system is the upcoming January reset. But by the over reaction of people like her about the tier system, the voice of the reasonable contributors can't be heard.

For small contributors that are just starting out, get educated and start calculating your RPD and stop reading nonsense written by illiterate people.

Visit this thread and do some accurate calculations to help the effort:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/accurate-calculations-of-old-rpd-vs-june-rpd-(constant-updates)/

After all, each Shutterstock contributor must be reminded that by clicking "I Agree" they have agreed to let Shutterstock determine the contributor rates as they wish at any given time. There is nothing unethical. The January reset is still something that could be negotiated, but certainly not by the contributors that act like animals and lowering the average contributor image to that level.
Okay, you have enjoyed, goal achieved.

« Reply #321 on: June 09, 2020, 08:19 »
+4
People aren't being lazy. Step back and listen to the people better qualified to know what's going on, even if you are the Braveheart of grade school bog roll. Your methods are entirely invalid, providing self selecting data for your spreadsheet only lends legitimacy to a very flawed method and will give a very skewed impression of what is going on.

Especially now that you have annoyed so many people that the only ones that will fill out your form will be ones that agree with you.

When you were showing an average of 20/30% drop for level 5 from subjects you were saying, to paraphrase, "well I have only seen a drop of 5%, that feels more accurate to me". I mean what the heck.

anon20200611

« Reply #322 on: June 09, 2020, 08:24 »
0
People aren't being lazy. Step back and listen to the people better qualified to know what's going on, even if you are the Braveheart of grade school bog roll. Your methods are entirely invalid, providing self selecting data for your spreadsheet only lends legitimacy to a very flawed method and will give a very skewed impression of what is going on.

Especially now that you have annoyed so many people that the only ones that will fill out your form will be ones that agree with you.

When you were showing an average of 20/30% drop for level 5 from subjects you were saying, to paraphrase, "well I have only seen a drop of 5%, that feels more accurate to me". I mean what the heck.

Dude, show your rpd then. You had an equal chance as mine to be included in the spreadsheet. My rpd calculations that accurately reflect the -% in earnings were made public. Yours were not. I'm certainly not the one hiding something here. If you want to make me understand, use the 3rd grade math suggested in that post and go prove your point. Your number of "votes" is determined only by your level. I think this forum needs to serve it's purpose and be trully informational.

Shelma1

« Reply #323 on: June 09, 2020, 08:29 »
+2
the Braveheart of grade school bog roll.

 ;D

Snow

« Reply #324 on: June 09, 2020, 10:38 »
+3
People aren't being lazy. Step back and listen to the people better qualified to know what's going on, even if you are the Braveheart of grade school bog roll. Your methods are entirely invalid, providing self selecting data for your spreadsheet only lends legitimacy to a very flawed method and will give a very skewed impression of what is going on.

Especially now that you have annoyed so many people that the only ones that will fill out your form will be ones that agree with you.

When you were showing an average of 20/30% drop for level 5 from subjects you were saying, to paraphrase, "well I have only seen a drop of 5%, that feels more accurate to me". I mean what the heck.

Dude, show your rpd then. You had an equal chance as mine to be included in the spreadsheet. My rpd calculations that accurately reflect the -% in earnings were made public. Yours were not. I'm certainly not the one hiding something here. If you want to make me understand, use the 3rd grade math suggested in that post and go prove your point. Your number of "votes" is determined only by your level. I think this forum needs to serve it's purpose and be trully informational.

I get that you try to be professional about this.
I don't get why you are acting like a crusader though trying to convince people things are not as bad as it seems while we're looking at half our normal income. I don't think that'll work mate.
Nothing against you, do keep at it but I doubt you will change a lot of minds :D

Take care!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
7142 Views
Last post January 12, 2009, 13:23
by jsnover
1 Replies
1849 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
6520 Views
Last post February 05, 2021, 11:18
by Uncle Pete
3 Replies
2111 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