MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

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

Disable photo and video
129 (47.1%)
Disable only photo
15 (5.5%)
Disable only video
21 (7.7%)
Disable nothing
76 (27.7%)
Quit Shutterstock
33 (12%)

Total Members Voted: 270

Author Topic: With new earning structure made by Shutterstock will you disable your portfolio?  (Read 15978 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2020, 12:36 »
+1
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.

That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.

This is the calculated approach they have made. It makes no difference if 5-10 percent of the content is deleted. They have plenty of similars to make it up and buyers will just look for and find something other than that other fantastic shot that will satisfy their needs. This game is over. I am saddened for those of you who rely on SS or micro to make a living.


« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2020, 12:39 »
+6
I will not disable anything.

I will wait to see the actual sales results in June and July and also to see if Shutterstock comes to their senses and adjusts their new royalty plan, especially, if they cancel the yearly reset to zero.

Once I have all that information I will adjust new uploads accordingly.

Especially with video I might favor other places.

And if the results from photo sales falls, I will upload new content elsewhere first and SS will become an agency for older content.

But if the money is more or less the same, I will change nothing.

Thanks for standing up for a little bit of reason instead of hasty angry reactions.

I will wait and see, before I determine that everything is terrible and that SS has become the evil force in the Universe of Microstock.

I don't understand why people are turning off, closing, shutting down, when they have no information or data, on how this actually affects us? If nothing else, I'm at a good level and will be going up another soon, and I can make money until January 1st, and then decide.

No I will not disable my portfolio June 1st, it's too soon to see how this will affect anything or how it will change my earnings.

That could be a sensible approach to some business model changes..
But in this case there are elements of it which are nothing but shameless greed and squeezing money out from contributors. Mainly the resetting to 15% commission every January. That is just outrageous and should not be accepted in any form, no matter how sales develop in the future.

Everyone needs to decide for themselves. I'm taking the money until January 1st and then I'll see.  :)

I don't make video, well I do but it's all exclusive on P5. I only actively supply three agencies. SS, AS and Alamy. This could be different and be why someone else would rather make nothing from the best earning agency as their personal decision. Anyone who disables their account is guaranteeing they will make nothing from SS. If that's a business plan, for income and earnings, it's very unusual.

I kind of hope this hands Adobe the biggest share of the market as I prefer them. Something else we can watch for seven months, and see what happens.

Both Shutterstock and Istock now have the ability to discount subs heavily to regain market share and still make their profit. That means Adobe cannot compete unless they follow suit like Alamy did last year by cutting commissions. We only get one chance at this and that is not to allow a price war with out images.  If they succeed we lose not only at Shutterstock, but everywhere else as well in the long run.

« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2020, 12:41 »
+1
Just be careful about disabling your images and videos I did that three days ago
and as a test tried to re-enable my portfolio yesterday and today and I'm just getting

"You have changed your settings too many times today. Please try again later"

Seems like once you disable they aren't letting you back in

« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2020, 12:53 »
+4
SS is not stupid...They are going to make it hard for you to mess with them...I have to assume someone in their communications group is reading everyone of these post. If SS dose this and yes they most likely will...all the other stock sites will follow. if the biggest boy on the street-SS drops rates the smaller sites will drop rates also..just watch. ..Then the end of making real money in stock photography is over for all professional photographers. At that point it is just a very low paying hobby. 

« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2020, 13:14 »
+7
This game is over. I am saddened for those of you who rely on SS or micro to make a living.

I feel that way too.

Yes, the game is over. Yes, I'm sorry for those who need to make a living at this.

More and more, I find myself rejoicing that I'm old.

That may sound odd, but the world we all live in nowwith its frequent pandemics and its boom-or-bust economies and its increasing have-and-have-not inequalities and its climate change and its blundering authoritarian "leaders"is not a place where I would choose to spend my entire life.

I wish the young well, but I fear the worst for them.

« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2020, 13:17 »
+8
Alright, again I have to repeat myself:

To those who think they will get more sales when many of us leave. When we leave or disable our ports we will create gaps in their library. Are you going to fill those gaps? do you have what it takes? the experience? execution? inspiration? quality? Better get started then, lots to learn!

For anyone leaving 10 are standing in line. Again do they have the same experience, talent, inspiration as the one leaving? How about editorials? Do they have the same access or live in the same country?

Does a contributor from Ukraine upload the same material as a contributor from Italy?
Is it only the amount of contributors that matter or the quality, concept, location, etc? So those spammers with 10k images are making the big bucks, not those with 1k high quality conceptual images/illustrations/clips?

Plenty of new guys with lots of talent waiting to join? But the situation has changed drastically because those who currently live comfortable with 500 bucks or less will also be affected by this move, starting January next year so I don't think people will be so eager to join anymore.

Disabling our portfolio is the smartest move we can make. Doing nothing is exactly what they expect from us cheap Microstockers, lots of talk but no action. It's the lack of action that drives them to make new decisions that will negatively affect us. It's only with action we can still prove our position in this market. We have to stop acting like prostitutes and act like artists!

Some of you do nothing, fine, maybe your limit is until you have to pay for upload but don't go telling people they are making a mistake by taking action, something you are afraid to do.
No sane person is going to defend what SS just did!

This is my current situation. Sales on SS have already dropped to 1/3 of what I should be making and the reviews are getting worse by the day. Meanwhile Adobe is climbing slightly and they reward us with a bonus in royalty or free year subscription to their Adobe software. They might be cash grabbers like the rest of them but at least they reward us in some way. Shutterstock on the other hand decides to take a big cut and continues to ignore us.

Reviews on Adobe have also improved and are certainly a lot better then Shutterstock in my case. This was different with Fotolia. It feels like SS has become one big mess while Adobe is doing just fine and enjoying the ride. They don't seem be in a so called panic state where they have to decide how to screw us over. Most likely because Adobe has other revenue streams besides Microstock but good for them.

Now sales at AS are still a fraction of SS, I know, same here but that will change when buyers find out we are moving shop and they will notice! My guess is we currently get better sales at SS because buyers get a better deal, we on the other hand do not. If we move the clients to where we want we can turn things around. (most) buyers don't care if they have to pay a few cents or dollars more if they can only find what they are looking for at a certain agency. Don't fool yourselves into thinking we do not have any input on how the market flows. We can guide the buyers. The suits own the store but we own the goods. If we change stores buyers will have to follow. It's the lack of doing just that that makes us the victim every time they make a change!

I'm seeing people go desperate and believe me I know the feeling and yes SS was also my N1 agency but this move actually gave me the boost I needed for quite a while now. Because of SS ways (sales, reviews, etc) I started to get demotivated and stopped uploading everywhere. With their new announcement I realized I have to make the best of it by going full on with those who still want to treat us fair, for me that includes AS, P5 and a few others. In case you're interested I only submit to SS, AS, AL and P5, that's it (started out with over 15) and for reference I once made over 1k at SS with less then 2k images so while I am far from one of those successful contributors that make/made a few k on a few hundred images/illustrations/clips I do believe I'm not one of those who cannot have any real input on the situation either.

Will SS retaliate by us making a move or expressing ourselves, maybe, probably but I have already reached my limit so I couldn't care less anymore.

My apologies since I'm not that good with words as some here are but hopefully the message has come across.

Good luck with whatever you decide my fellow contributors, remember we are all in this together, take care!

« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2020, 13:49 »
0
Here is a way to beat SS. Unfortunately I have not the intellect to design this . As a group setup a new site, with free images. Yes free images, might as well be free if SS and the other sites go with this new model. Hard to beat free. Not even the evil SS can beat free. You have a site that is just like every other site with the difference all images/videos are free. To get a free image you have to listen to a 30-60 second add . Just like the adds on youtube. The difference you can't rush are turn off the add. At the end of the advertisement you get a unique number/code for one free picture or video that day. You can get as many pictures per day as you listen to different adds and get different codes.The codes are only good per image per 24 hours. The the payout which I guess is small , you get an advertising fee for showing the add. No this most likely won't get you more money than the slims at SS but free is hard to beat. No sure what those  adds pay but I am guessing 20 to 40 cents each. You could also charge a yearly fee like Costco dose, maybe 29 bucks a year to make a little more revenue.

« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2020, 13:54 »
+1
Here is a way to beat SS. Unfortunately I have not the intellect to design this . As a group setup a new site, with free images. Yes free images, might as well be free if SS and the other sites go with this new model. Hard to beat free. Not even the evil SS can beat free. You have a site that is just like every other site with the difference all images/videos are free. To get a free image you have to listen to a 30-60 second add . Just like the adds on youtube. The difference you can't rush are turn off the add. At the end of the advertisement you get a unique number/code for one free picture or video that day. You can get as many pictures per day as you listen to different adds and get different codes.The codes are only good per image per 24 hours. The the payout which I guess is small , you get an advertising fee for showing the add. No this most likely won't get you more money than the slims at SS but free is hard to beat. No sure what those  adds pay but I am guessing 20 to 40 cents each. You could also charge a yearly fee like Costco dose, maybe 29 bucks a year to make a little more revenue.

I don't think it's viable. Stock image buyers are not a big enough audience for advertisement. Even youtubers with millions of views only get a fraction of their income from actual ad revenue.
Also it's a very unprofessional way to present your work

« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2020, 14:06 »
+4
Getting 10 cents an image from SS seems unprofessional to me...

« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2020, 14:38 »
+6
I already disabled my vids today and might disable pics june 1st.

csm

« Reply #60 on: May 28, 2020, 16:46 »
+3
Getting 10 cents an image from SS seems unprofessional to me...

They quoted payout for subscription plans will be less than 10c.
And I thought how generous.
I quote ; "rewarding content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and currently in demand by our customers"
I`m not sure those fees are a generous reward to produce the kind of imagery that they want.
High end model released work predominantly, how much would those models cost? Or are we to photograph people without giving them a reward?
Looks to me like they want quality work but no one is prepare to pay for it.
And how long and how many sales would you need on a photoshoot to make a profit?

Also, who is producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and currently in demand in december / January?
Or will contributors shoot that work in autumn and hold on to it until the new year?...

I follow SS on Instagram, one of their accounts is all about life at the office, and I just think what do they do all day? Its not editing, isn't that done elsewhere? From the photos it doesn't`t look like they do much, just altering the algorithms? :)

While we are all slaving a way for $0:33 a time etc, (how many images sales to make what would be an hourly wage,) and SS staff are having bringing kids to work day, chefs cooking lunch, friday afternoon water balloon fight or yoga. Seeing all the fun activities they get up to I find a bit insulting. (I wouldn`t find it insulting if I thought contributors were given a fair reward for their work.) If they have all that time to do such fun things, I'm sure they should be editing there too? I've never contacted them about submission issues, but isn't that not done by them either is it? All a bit of a contrast, when I was with Corbis, based in New York, I had the same editor for 15 years, whome I spoke to directly. I even went to their Christmas party a couple of times!

« Reply #61 on: May 28, 2020, 16:58 »
+5
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.

That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.

This is the calculated approach they have made. It makes no difference if 5-10 percent of the content is deleted. They have plenty of similars to make it up and buyers will just look for and find something other than that other fantastic shot that will satisfy their needs. This game is over. I am saddened for those of you who rely on SS or micro to make a living.

That is not how deactivations work.

The main problem for agencies is the massive upset of the customers. They have lightboxed millions of files for various projects and usually these projects, including files, need someones approval.

If suddenly 10% of collected files for projects are no longer available for download, they dont just have to look for a replacement, they often also have to get a new approval.

That is why deactivations are painful, customers react very, very strongly to having THEIR workflow and time interrupted and wasted.

Plus...if Shutterstock refuses to get rid of the reset to zero in January, they will probably get the largest online shitstorm ever.

There are many artists who are journalist, or are also buyers themselves as designers and will recommend a switch to other agencies that treat people reliably and well.

Nobody in the media industry (or anyhwere else) would accept to have their income cut to a minimal level on January first every year.

Nobody can work like that. The concept is insane.

So if SS does not rework the current proposal, they will not just face deactivations, but active online boycotts, artists using anything on social media to educate customers of this sh...sandwich and encourage them to change their subscription plans to Adobe or elsewhere.

This shitstorm hasnt even started, you have no idea how this can skyrocket over 14 days.


The shitstorms against DPC, the Getty scandal, Hyperstock all these will be happy little lullabies against an angry and abused Shutterstock community.

Reset to Zero every year is unbelievably cruel against 1.2 million contributors. We are not bots.

ETA: I am considering to switch off my ports for a few days. Because so far I am not seeing the slightest response from Shuttertsock on social media or their forums that they have even begun to understand how abusive the Reset to Zero is.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2020, 17:22 by cobalt »

« Reply #62 on: May 28, 2020, 17:17 »
+2

My apologies since I'm not that good with words as some here are but hopefully the message has come across.

Good luck with whatever you decide my fellow contributors, remember we are all in this together, take care!

No need to apologize. Your words were perfect for the occasion. Your message definitely came through and that's all that matters.

Six weeks ago, for my own reasons (not SS's most-recent idiocy) I pulled my 700+ videos out of SS and took them exclusively to P5. And I'll do the same with my 3,137 pics on June 1 not just for myself but for you and everybody else.

Because yes we are all in this together.

« Reply #63 on: May 28, 2020, 17:19 »
+2

This shitstorm hasnt even started, you have no idea how this can skyrocket over 14 days.

The shitstorms against DPC, the Getty scandal, Hyperstock all these will be happy little lullabies against an angry and abused Shutterstock community.

For sure, all of us "defectors" will laugh and give one another cyber-slaps on the back when that shitstorm begins. I can hardly wait!

« Reply #64 on: May 28, 2020, 17:42 »
+3
Just be careful about disabling your images and videos I did that three days ago
and as a test tried to re-enable my portfolio yesterday and today and I'm just getting

"You have changed your settings too many times today. Please try again later"

Seems like once you disable they aren't letting you back in


Yes, thats new, because I closed my account a couple of months ago, but before I did, I disabled images 2 or 3 times in the month
 prior and never got a warning. I wouldnt be surprised if they get rid of that feature altogether.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #65 on: May 28, 2020, 19:29 »
+3
As I'm not on SS, I've just been watching these threads very casually (but with sympathy), but just in case this hasn't been noted, on the SS ToS:
8.3 There is a minimum payout rate per accounting period of: Thirty Five US Dollars (USD 35.00) (the "Payout Minimum"). If during an accounting period, you haven't reached the Payout Minimum or provided Shutterstock a valid electronic payment account, your compensation will be rolled over into the next accounting period. If you cancel your account prior to accrued earnings in your royalty account reaching the applicable Payout Minimum, you thereby forfeit such royalties. For clarity, you shall have no right to any earnings accrued following the disabling of your contributor account or until such time as the applicable Payout Minimum threshold is reached.
I realise that the principle matters more than the $34.99 to many people, but I just didn't want people unknowingly to lose the money.

« Reply #66 on: May 29, 2020, 00:59 »
+6
I'm glad that most people are willing to take a stand. If we don't and other sites feel they can follow shutterstock's lead, then the loss of income will be even greater. I just disabled my images now in case they make it impossible to do so on June 1.

While buyers may want the best price, finding the right image is more important to most of them, and if they can't find what they want on shutterstock they'll look elsewhere. How often do you see articles or books with images purchased for $$$ from a macro or mid-stock agency side by side with images from shutterstock or other micros? Frequently, I'm sure. I've had photos in the same book or article licensed from two different agencies for wildly different prices, because most buyers are willing to pay for the images they want, and most volume buyers source their images from a few different agencies. Since no one is exclusive to shutterstock, hopefully buyers will find the same images on other sites and this will help offset loses on shutterstock.

Any loss from my shutterstock portfolio is a lot smaller than the hit from selling my shutterstock shares at a loss, and I feel for those who are losing a big part of their income here, but hopefully that pain will also be felt by shutterstock and it will make other sites think twice before following their lead.

We really are in this together. So, let's call their bluff and show them they've miscalculated.


« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2020, 01:40 »
+2
As I'm not on SS, I've just been watching these threads very casually (but with sympathy), but just in case this hasn't been noted, on the SS ToS:
8.3 There is a minimum payout rate per accounting period of: Thirty Five US Dollars (USD 35.00) (the "Payout Minimum"). If during an accounting period, you haven't reached the Payout Minimum or provided Shutterstock a valid electronic payment account, your compensation will be rolled over into the next accounting period. If you cancel your account prior to accrued earnings in your royalty account reaching the applicable Payout Minimum, you thereby forfeit such royalties. For clarity, you shall have no right to any earnings accrued following the disabling of your contributor account or until such time as the applicable Payout Minimum threshold is reached.
I realise that the principle matters more than the $34.99 to many people, but I just didn't want people unknowingly to lose the money.

This. Everything is in place to avoid a sudden hit on their database. Some will pull their port immediately, some will pull on 1st of June, some will pull after their payout the next month or coming months, and some will wait and see and pull on January 1st because it's unclear how much the contributors will have to give in on their earnings and they still want to profit from higher earning tiers for another 6 months. Meanwhile, many will not pull their port at all but just stop uploading, others will take the hit and continue uploading and there's an influx of new contributors.

As I mentioned earlier. Don't think Shutterstock didn't think this over and didn't do the math. They are better at it than we are, as they have all the date, and we have to rely on our assumptions and emotions. Small risk vs. significant earnings increase potential.

Contributors are not organized, and some of them pulling their portfolio's spread out over several months is compensated by contributors who keep uploading and new contributors who have no clue about what's going on and just dump their content.

If you want to hit them, you'll need the big guns. Image mills or aggregator sites like Wirestock or Blackbox. They will not pull either, as however they are in the same boat, they're also, more than the contributor community here, each other's competitors. They will reach higher tiers after the reset in no time anyhow, so for them the cut in earnings is considerable less.


« Reply #68 on: May 29, 2020, 02:25 »
+8
1.2 million contributors who are mostly design professionals and will now all recommend that their clients switch to Adobe or elsewhere??

Please, they never thought this through.

They believed they could use the corona crisis to push it through because desperate creatives in a heavy recession cannot afford to pull their files. Because they desperately need any money that comes in.

But the cruel insanity completly irgnored that these 1.2. million humans are also the buyer community.

They might not pull their files during the pandemic because they cannot afford it.

But they sure as hell can clamour all their business partners and clients to switch to Adobe or any other company in the industry.

Nobody, really nobody in the industry has ever decided they want to crash your income every January first.

It is as much an attack on loyal customers as it is on contributors.

Adobe and all other agencies should send Shutterstock management 1000 boxes of the most expensive champagne, for driving clients and producers towards them in the middle of a heavy recession.

« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2020, 03:52 »
+5
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.

That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.

Maybe you missed a crucial point here.
It's not 5000 contributors who will deactivate their portfolio, but 5000 of the most prominent contributors, because in the end those are the ones who have the most to lose, especially those who produce quality videos.
When Shutterstock has lost this quality content then the deal could change.

« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2020, 05:11 »
+2
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.

That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.

Maybe you missed a crucial point here.
It's not 5000 contributors who will deactivate their portfolio, but 5000 of the most prominent contributors, because in the end those are the ones who have the most to lose, especially those who produce quality videos.
When Shutterstock has lost this quality content then the deal could change.

Do you think that top contributors will leave on 1st of June, or stop uploading, considering they are already in the higher earning tiers meaning the price cut hurts them less significantly? I don't think so. I think they will wait and see. They make business decisions based on facts and not on emotions, and disabling their ports will lead to an immediate and very significant loss in their income stream. Would be a foolish decision.

I'm not a top contributor, but if I was one, I would not pull out. I would try to adapt by finding an alternative without compromising my income stream more than necessary. Additionally, as a top contributor, I would think I have a bit more leverage than many others and I would have the guts to contact their account management and try to make a better deal for myself. I can hardly imagine that top contributors (which are companies themselves) are not already having a different agreement or receive special treatments.

I agree with you on the risk of SS losing quality content in the long term, but long term thinking is not what stock market listed companies care about.
Their only concern is the next quarterly result.

EDIT: of course, I hope I'm wrong, and some top contributors stand up and call SS out on their crap by hurting them where they feel it the most: loss in content, loss in customers, loss in earnings and a horrible reputation as cherry on the sour cake. 


« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2020, 05:45 »
0
Before you blow up the whole shutterstock, please consider that they have changed the whole pricing structures for customers, so now you can not say anything about how your income will look like after the changes they want to introduce.
Subscription plan is divided now into 4 new categories, and nobody of us knows a crap how those categories work.
And the same with 'on demand' section. Not mention other.
Check this out:

https://www.shutterstock.com/pricing


One thing is for sure: contributors with little portfolios of hundreds of pictures who have been earning just a little will be getting still less because of the new system.

The pricing page looks different on each continent/ country, this was discussed at SS forum, nobody knows why https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/?do=findComment&comment=1842858

« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2020, 05:55 »
0
I think it is importent to look to your return per download
My rpd is not high on Shutterstock

So there is a change that the rpd will be higher with the new earnings structure

By the way, this month is my BME on shutterstock, sales are rising

I'm going to wait and see and not disable my portfolio

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #73 on: May 29, 2020, 06:26 »
+4
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$c commissions.

That said, gotta stay true to yourself, and for the sake of giving a message and easy my mind by little acts of protest, mine goes down on 1st of June.

Maybe you missed a crucial point here.
It's not 5000 contributors who will deactivate their portfolio, but 5000 of the most prominent contributors, because in the end those are the ones who have the most to lose, especially those who produce quality videos.
When Shutterstock has lost this quality content then the deal could change.

I'd imagine they looked at what happened when Getty shafted iStock. Some people left, some people became indie, some people stopped contributing but left their files onboard, some people joined. They're probably guessing the same will happen for them.

And be clear, after the Getty/iS fiasco, everyone was all over SS. Now lots of these same people are all over Adobe - just how long will they resist the 'profits above everything' scenario? (I have no crystal ball and don't offer an opinion on this, but some people on here were 'sure' that SS would never sink to Getty levels of grasping.) Kelly Thomson was tasked with increasing profit, and the new SS CEO has a similar remit. The suppliers are ususally the ones who are shafted, in retail and in stock.

« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2020, 06:50 »
+5
EDIT: of course, I hope I'm wrong, and some top contributors stand up and call SS out on their crap by hurting them where they feel it the most: loss in content, loss in customers, loss in earnings and a horrible reputation as cherry on the sour cake.

I think they will give is a bone in some way, -if enough people disable their ports-. As usual, selfish people that don't will benefit from the stance of others. That's life. Selfish acts have deep roots inside of us. The rolling over next year is the most probable thing that they will give us if we stay united on this. If not, well everybody know the rules of the game now. But once a big corporation takes such a decision they don't go back. I agree with you that Public stocks, Companies held by Private Equities, look for the short term. Getty did not go back in any of their decisions and contributors tried. Adobe did not trail back from their subscription model either. It is what it is.

In any case, once a Company trumps their contributors it usually does not get better. So i would recommend all of you to slowly think of an exit startegy because from now on things are only going downhill, remember that Shutterstock is only following the lead of Getty here, and once you disrespect so deeply your contributors no sweet path lies ahead.

Whatever happens, look at you balance sheets. The time spent, production costs, storage costs, petrol, model fees etc. It is quite easy to calculate your hour returns. For the amateur this does not mater that much as they can go forward even at a loss. But to all that take this as a revenue stream with profits you have to be very careful where you put your assets.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6172 Views
Last post January 12, 2009, 13:23
by jsnover
1 Replies
1275 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:11
by OM
11 Replies
3206 Views
Last post April 13, 2015, 23:58
by Me
12 Replies
3885 Views
Last post May 09, 2017, 21:51
by SpaceStockFootage
3 Replies
631 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