MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Chichikov on May 27, 2020, 00:47
-
I Will, the first of June.
#BoycottShutterstock
-
I'll stop uploading. Two years of hard work and all my workflow designed for them. So...
But I'm new on Stock. I understand you.
-
Sales have been bad this year anyhow - down in the order of 50% from last year before these changes. Will remove 12K videos if nothing changes.
-
Already de-activated and deleting the videos this morning
-
Probably I'll disable my account from 1st of June and fully concentrate on AdobeStock...
-
I thought this an interesting suggestion I read on ss forum...
'Seriously if the contributor community want to make an impact there needs to be organizing as many contributors together to effectively disrupt the new model. I see suggestions to opt-out of sales from 1 June. No need to delete ports unless contributors want to. Just turn them off. There needs to be a clear and concise message and instruction to fellow contributors on various forums on how to opt-out on 1 June, perhaps for a period of two weeks (initially) to send a clear message. A 10% to 20% shutdown of content would suffice to achieve this as shareholders won't be happy with a significant drop in sales and profits.
Key is the contributor community need to strike while the iron is hot because this is the only chance you have to make a difference before emotions settle and a new normal sets in. There won't be another chance.'
-
Probably I'll disable my account from 1st of June and fully concentrate on AdobeStock...
How can you concentrate on Adobe Stock, how it looks like? I send images to all agencies and concentrate on producing content. The only thing I can do is stop uploading to SS and deactivate images, I can't do much more for Adobe than I do now.
-
May well delete in due course, when I have found another income stream....
I have bills to pay. In the past SS was my biggest agency, despite recently being pretty dire. I had hoped that post Corvid things might improve.
This clearly isn't going to happen now, but the bills are not going to stop. In fact, they will probably increase as other companies try to make up for the 'hit ' from lockdown etc.
:(
-
I will disable and then quit SS with some 8000 files plus all the videos! I'm afraid once this start there is no end to it and it will only go from bad to worse anyway. With me its also a principle I dont like the place and I dont like the new people running it. The place is acting in fraudulent ways.
-
yep already disabled sales yesterday, seems to work no new sales and normally get 15 -20 per day
-
this is the best time to start new exclusive content based agency
that or world union, syndicate or association like music artist have done.
-
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.
-
Images on, videos off, but I do not matter, 46 images or so in port.
Here is a semi-offtopic question.
Do you consider that this was planned when managment changed and just delayed due to coronavirus?
Or do you believe that this is because of major sales drops during and after coronavirus?
-
I won't disable anything, nor quit SS, I simply can't afford that for the time being. SS makes up 1/3rd of my yearly revenue.
Besides, what's left once we quit SS? Only Adobe is doing fine right now, the rest is just as evil. Pond5? Sucks. Alamy? Sucks. Getty/iStock? HA. Dreamstime, 123RF? Don't make me laugh.
-
It's already done. I deleted my account.
Not with me guys!! >:(
-
Probably I'll disable my account from 1st of June and fully concentrate on AdobeStock...
Never put your eggs in one basket, they say. But there are no other baskets left...
-
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 (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.
-
I won't disable anything, nor quit SS, I simply can't afford that for the time being. SS makes up 1/3rd of my yearly revenue.
Besides, what's left once we quit SS? Only Adobe is doing fine right now, the rest is just as evil. Pond5? Sucks. Alamy? Sucks. Getty/iStock? HA. Dreamstime, 123RF? Don't make me laugh.
Acting in this way, in some months you will probably write "SS makes up 5% of my yearly revenue"…
The only way to deal with this disaster is to unite and boycott Shutterstock, all together on June 1.
-
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 (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.
Honestly I am so peeved by the smoke and mirrors of stating a percentage when what we will be receiving will not correspond at all to that percentage in terms of what SS will get I could give a **** about the specifics right now.
This is just so underhanded. There have only been I think two other instances of something this sh**y been pulled by a major agency in the last 15 years. IStock giving away our images to Google (which effected a lot less people) and Fotolia with the whole DPC (which they back-peddled after the levels of outrage).
To do this to us in the middle of a pandemic when other companies are thinking of ways to support their partners through this (so we can all survive including them) is unspeakably cruel.
God * this gig economy.
-
If i remember well, last time there was an outrage against an agency (i think it was Depositphotos) Stocksubmitter had a pop-up window informing contributors about situation and the protest. I think there was also a tool to make disabling files easier (that part may not be needed for Shutterstock, disabling is really easy)
So organizing a protest i think we should get the Stocksubmitter guy onboard. I believe there are a lot of Russian-speaking users of it who don't read English forums
-
Shutterstock makes up around 40% of my stock income, but I will be disabling my account June 1st. If we let them do this to us, we literally have no self-respect.
-
Shutterstock makes up around 40% of my stock income, but I will be disabling my account June 1st. If we let them do this to us, we literally have no self-respect.
They make up 47% of my income but I still disabled sales on images and deleted videos
I'm sick of this vile industry that treats us like sh-t and comes up with socalled exciting news on a regular basis to cover up their poor management skills and idiocy
-
yep already disabled sales yesterday, seems to work no new sales and normally get 15 -20 per day
Where can we disable sales without close account or delete images? ??? :-[
-
yep already disabled sales yesterday, seems to work no new sales and normally get 15 -20 per day
Where can we disable sales without close account or delete images? ??? :-[
In your Account Settings
-
They don't care a sod if we little-earner disable something. There is nothing like a REAL and WORKING agency contributors-driven, with a fair payment system, a copyright watch over the internet and so on. This is an illusion, just because people all over the world are not able to organize as a powerful mass. We are too stupid and not resolute.
So, pressmaster or Arcurs earnings per-year and mine, in January, are the same. This is how SS will mistreat contributor big-players at the start of the year. Of course their license number will quickly increase… but not so fast except for a very well , and little, considered number of contributor. Not so relevant for SS.
Mistreating the vast majority of contributors is how SS takes advantage of us all: that’s why is a good idea to have trillions of facile images, not-so-crappy but not even very good. That’s not a problem: these image means good money for SS: and these images are a very very big number. They SELL EVERYTHING and it’s their win if they sell an image from a contributor with a low per-year number of sales. That’s great: we are a huge number. So from their point of view the sales-mumber is high anyway, and their percentage is higher anyway.
In January we all will earn less and SS will earn more. Then they will earn a little less from some great studios and keep on earning a lot from the masses… things will be normal in the end of the year… and then restart. You are never finally rewarded with SS. This is how to impoverish copyright at the very best level.
After all microstock is commoditization of intellectual property. We are simply saying “oh yeah, let F*** us HARDER!”.
Leaving in SS our portfolio if we are not earning in a satisfactory way, is rewarding for them anyway: this give the message that we don’t care if we are mistreated. They don’t feel any after effects if we leave images in agencies that don’t pay us the right. More poor is the contributor, and more they f*** it!
-
I´ve already disable my vids. Probrably i`will start to delete some of my images on June 1st. For now, i am not going to upload more and will focus on Adobe instead.
I wonder if these changes can be the typical business strategy; make some hard-to-accept changes so that we don't protest when they're modified with the ones they really have in mind.
Anyway, its discouraging.
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521
-
that part may not be needed for Shutterstock, disabling is really easy
I wonder how long that's gonna last before disabling is not an option anymore, and removing your assets becomes a bureaucratic nightmare.
-
yep already disabled sales yesterday, seems to work no new sales and normally get 15 -20 per day
Where can we disable sales without close account or delete images? ??? :-[
In your Account Settings
Thank You, done.
-
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/)
These groupies sure are something else. What on earth makes them think they will get more sales if someone with a 10k food, concept or fashion portfolio leaves?
Do they fill all the gaps with their subject matter, concepts, quality and more importantly Editorials?
They lack self respect and do not value their own work, that we already get but at least they can show some respect for those who work their butt off to survive in this market.
Shame on you!
-
I will not delete, but i stopped uploading to SS. There is not return for me. Same as i stopped istock a long time ago.
If i would continue there, i would feel bad every single day while working. No thx.
AS, 123rf and some others to continue.
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
The small things are very important. Delete the SS badge at your profile too. The best thing that can happen is that the SS is forgotten and Adobestock becomes the standard. Little things count.
-
I will not delete, but i stopped uploading to SS. There is not return for me. Same as i stopped istock a long time ago.
If i would continue there, i would feel bad every single day while working. No thx.
AS, 123rf and some others to continue.
You don't have to actually delete, as of now, you can disable your portfolio even temporarily in your account settings
-
Shutterstock makes up around 40% of my stock income, but I will be disabling my account June 1st. If we let them do this to us, we literally have no self-respect.
Bravo (Brava??), Wollwerth.
I could say almost the same thing and am with you 100%.
-
I'm SO glad I deleted my port from Shitterstock two years ago.
-
It's going to be really hard for me but I will disable my portfolio on June 1st. I'm on level 5 too but I believe that I have to stand up to this. Having to start over every year is such a kick to the back.
-
I don't have much faith in the effectiveness of this kind of petition, but since it does exist, I'd like to point it out in case you missed it.
https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings? (https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings?)
-
Account disabled. From June 1 I might loose a small share of profits. They will loose 4x. Lets see how they like it if more people take action.
-
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/)
These groupies sure are something else. What on earth makes them think they will get more sales if someone with a 10k food, concept or fashion portfolio leaves?
Do they fill all the gaps with their subject matter, concepts, quality?
They lack self respect and do not value their own work, that we already get but at least they can show some respect for those who work their butt off to survive in this market.
Shame on you!
That guy starting the thread has 4 pages of mediocre images after "years of uploading". Who cares about him anyway. Don't take him too seriously. Besides, as political parties do, he could be sent by SS to send their voice, I'm surprised they haven't done that earlier.
-
Great idea.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/coronavirus-quarantine-children-china-homework-app-dingtalk-a9387741.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/coronavirus-quarantine-children-china-homework-app-dingtalk-a9387741.html)
-
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/)
These groupies sure are something else. What on earth makes them think they will get more sales if someone with a 10k food, concept or fashion portfolio leaves?
Do they fill all the gaps with their subject matter, concepts, quality?
They lack self respect and do not value their own work, that we already get but at least they can show some respect for those who work their butt off to survive in this market.
Shame on you!
That guy starting the thread has 4 pages of mediocre images after "years of uploading". Who cares about him anyway. Don't take him too seriously. Besides, as political parties do, he could be sent by SS to send their voice, I'm surprised they haven't done that earlier.
I’m afraid I couldn't help responding to him. Asshat.
-
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/)
These groupies sure are something else. What on earth makes them think they will get more sales if someone with a 10k food, concept or fashion portfolio leaves?
Do they fill all the gaps with their subject matter, concepts, quality?
They lack self respect and do not value their own work, that we already get but at least they can show some respect for those who work their butt off to survive in this market.
Shame on you!
That guy starting the thread has 4 pages of mediocre images after "years of uploading". Who cares about him anyway. Don't take him too seriously. Besides, as political parties do, he could be sent by SS to send their voice, I'm surprised they haven't done that earlier.
I’m afraid I couldn't help responding to him. Asshat.
Of course he doesn't mind the change, he'll be probably making $15 instead of $20 a month or something. Especially funny the part about the time and energy he put in his port LOL
-
we are officially homeless
-
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.
-
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/ (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/)
These groupies sure are something else. What on earth makes them think they will get more sales if someone with a 10k food, concept or fashion portfolio leaves?
Do they fill all the gaps with their subject matter, concepts, quality?
They lack self respect and do not value their own work, that we already get but at least they can show some respect for those who work their butt off to survive in this market.
Shame on you!
That guy starting the thread has 4 pages of mediocre images after "years of uploading". Who cares about him anyway. Don't take him too seriously. Besides, as political parties do, he could be sent by SS to send their voice, I'm surprised they haven't done that earlier.
I’m afraid I couldn't help responding to him. Asshat.
Of course he doesn't mind the change, he'll be probably making $15 instead of $20 a month or something. Especially funny the part about the time and energy he put in his port LOL
Of course he doesn't he's a lawyer and a gambler he doesn't need stock
-
Probably I'll disable my account from 1st of June and fully concentrate on AdobeStock...
How can you concentrate on Adobe Stock, how it looks like? I send images to all agencies and concentrate on producing content. The only thing I can do is stop uploading to SS and deactivate images, I can't do much more for Adobe than I do now.
You can not do too much but disable your content on SS, what I meant is that Adobestock slowly starts to be the best option for me qua earnings, and there is no ridiculous 10 cent payment per download. Not yet...
-
Remember, if you are making $100 month on SS, by disabling your portfolio won't make your earnings go down by $100, but more likely $30 since you won't be earning nowhere close to $100 after June 1.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 now—with 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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
Getting 10 cents an image from SS seems unprofessional to me...
-
I already disabled my vids today and might disable pics june 1st.
-
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 $0:33 a time etc, (how many images sales to make what would be an hourly wage,) and SS staff are having bringing kids to work day, chefs cooking lunch, friday afternoon water balloon fight or yoga. Seeing all the fun activities they get up to I find a bit insulting. (I wouldn`t find it insulting if I thought contributors were given a fair reward for their work.) If they have all that time to do such fun things, I'm sure they should be editing there too? I've never contacted them about submission issues, but isn't that not done by them either is it? All a bit of a contrast, when I was with Corbis, based in New York, I had the same editor for 15 years, whome I spoke to directly. I even went to their Christmas party a couple of times!
-
5000 contributors disabling a port of 5000 images on average is still only 7 or 8 % of the database, which is extremely competitive and loaded with similar images of the same subject anyhow. We can discuss how many contributors will leave and how big or small their portfolio's are, but don't think Shutterstock didn't do the math and didn't calculate the risk or effect. Plenty of people left who don't disable, and prefer earning less instead of getting nothing at all (some really need the money), and of course plenty of people left willing to sell out for 10$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 don‘t 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 hasn‘t 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.
-
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.
-
This shitstorm hasn‘t 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!
-
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, that’s 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 wouldn’t be surprised if they get rid of that feature altogether.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100168-why-deactivating-is-a-mistake-at-least-for-me/?do=findComment&comment=1842858)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I agree with you. People put now faith on Adobe and the story will repeat again in the future. Why? Adobe is a public stock that has to show growth and value for their investors. Right now they have an impressive growth because of their shift to subscription, but at some point this will slow down,stop or reverse and then you will have the pressure to look where to trim costs. If the main market competitors go away with a median of 20% to contributors why should they pay 35%. It only diminishes their competitive advantage.
The only real sustainable models are business like Stocksy or companies not on the stock market that care for long growth. The problem is that there are not many alternatives out there. Stocksy is a great business but with a restricted community of contributors. At some point I hope something similar comes out but not so much narrowed down in style and membership. Diverse but at the same time strict on content spamming that has hit Shutterstock for a long time.
Stcok is a very mature market with little growth. It has been tougher for a long time and this is only accelerating. Very little maneuvering possibilities.......
-
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
Not my case.
Before disabling both photo & video portfolios I wanted to figure out how the system works, so I only disabled then re-enabled videos. It took about 36 hours for first and 48 h for second step, without any problem.
I compared the search ranking, before/after disabling, of 3 files and the placement were better but it could be "new" file boost and not "real" ranking.
As I'm lazy and don't want to calculate my new commissions I will disable my portolios on 3rd of june to have some numbers before.
-
So, how much is 15% of three cents?
You know that's where they're going.
-
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.
I am one of those who think it would probably be wiser to wait a month to see how things really look and how they evolve.
But I am also one of those who give meaning to the word "solidarity", and for me solidarity is more valuable than money.
For this reason, the first of June, I will disable my whole portfolio.
(The real question now is: for how much time?)
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
-
So once you opt out of sales... is there is any chance SS can still make your images available to the clients? What happens if images were lightboxed or they were already hoping / planning to use some of them for upcoming projects?
If I opt out sales - will the completely shut down the possibility of the clients acquiring the images?
Also do you think they can do anything regarding payouts if you reach the threshold and opt out today?
Does anything think they will remove the opt out options in the settings?
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Why would they go anywhere?
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649)
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521)
Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793) still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image! :)
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
No they won't go to Istock, because they can't get my amazing files there 8) ;D
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
-
Yeah i will quit shutterstock on June 1st, 3500 photos they will never see again.... We need to send a strong message! Im doing quite well on Adobe, Deposit Photos and Pond5 so wont be such a big deal and wasn't going to get so much from Shutterstock now anyways...
-
Originally I did not want to turn off my port, but now I will turn off video on June 1 for 15 days in protest. I will keep photos on initially to get some information and maybe will turn that off later. Or on June 15 make a switch, turn on video but turn off photos, we will see.
Beyond the whole reset to zero thing every year, what really gets me is the cruelty of abruptly cutting peoples income in the middle of a pandemic and global recession.
Many creatives have lost all their income from shooting weddings and events, have absoluely no graphic design projects left...etc...and in many countries there is no state run social security network.
The income from stock ports is the only income for many families struggeling in a horrible crisis.
Dreamstime is a tiny company but they have decided to support their creatives.
A huge company like SS that can easily pay out dividends, has good cash flow etc...they are the ones taking more of our income.
-
I just clicked the box (I have only photos) hoping I'm out June 1.
4000 images, about $100,000 of lifetime earnings in 12 or 13 years. Makes me sad, but this is for the better. I did like Shuttertock, but now the feeling is gone... breaks my heart. I really hope a lot of contributors will do this, it would send SS and other agencies a signal. And if the buyers move somewhere like Adobe Stock or Alamy I wouldn't mind a bit.
Lately I have made only about $250 to $300 per month there (at best I used to make over $1,000 per month), after the new royalties I would most likely make just a $100 per month, so it's not that big of a deal to give that up.
I do leave the back door open, if people report the same earnings (or more! – not likely!) I will return.
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649)
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521)
Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793) still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image! :)
I think this could get lost because of a typo making it all look like a quote and hiding Anja_Kaiser's response.
Just wanted to highlight it and say thanks to one of microstock's all time best selling artists!
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
And again what makes you think all agencies offer the same quality/concept/style or buyers don't care?
If all of us move to Adobe or any other agency besides iStock buyers will have to follow because they won't find what they are looking for at iStock.
It's weird that some of you think we're all robots providing the same stuff. There are a lot of contributors out there who have very high quality, unique concepts, etc whom cannot be replaced or replicated that easily.
Say I'm looking for a certain Beatles album at this store but can't find it, Will I go "Oh well I'll just get this other Beatles album then, or maybe even this Rolling Stones album instead since they don't have any Beatles".
Or will I check out this other store, maybe even pay a bit more and get an annoying sales person behind the counter but still get the Beatles album I wanted!
Now I know in Microstock buyers won't be that picky but do you know for sure? There are buyers out there that will only search the first few pages, maybe even first few rows because they are on a deadline or budget but certainly not all of them.
The high sales we get are from those who are looking for that certain Beatles album and to me those are the sales that count the most!
Imagine if we would single out a lot of agencies so there's almost no possibility anymore for buyers to shop elsewhere. Do you think they would stop buying? No they would follow even if it's more expensive or a worse experience then they are accustomed to.
We have to stop acting like hopeless victims that have no say in all this. I also see too many people going at each other while they don't realize we're all in the same boat, well most of us anyway. You also have to separate the groupies from the rest because those people will misguide you. Some of us also have to stop acting like little schoolgirls and make the right decision, together. Again guide the buyers, don't go spreading around like a bunch of zombies. Think it trough!
I will never forget Dreamstime because they sold my very fist stock image. I have left them a long time ago because of reviews (too strict similar policy at that time) and very low sales. Now they announced 10% extra. Does that mean I will jump on them? no because this won't have much effect on my earnings, to fill the gap SS will create. For me, and I repeat in my situation Adobe has the most potential to replace SS in earnings so my focus is on them. Sales ares till low because buyers haven't been guided properly yet. If we spread around like headless chickens then Adobe will never take off.
If I go join all the others again and spread my work around I'm not doing myself any favors and I will eventually be in the same situation as I am now. Dreamstime could be great, as any other agency but we still have to be realistic about it.
If you want to talk about contributor friendly agencies then GLStock (Graphic Leftovers) was the king but we never gave them a chance because we were too busy spreading our work around.
I'm not taking less then 30% from any agency (micro, macro, boutique, POD, etc) and that's it. Shutterstock has the right to do whatever they want and I respect that but so do I.
If Adobe or any other agency decides to cut my royalties to 29% tomorow then I'm out too, it's that simple. Do I have that luxury? hell no but I will still do it!
Take care peeps and at least make it a great weekend, do some other stuff besides stock to get your mind of things, I will do the same. We'll see what happens next week!
-
You are right. They don't give a * about contributors,nor do they care a coma about Shutter Istock or blablastock, they only follow our content. That is the only thing that matters. Istock/Getty lost its predominant position not because of prices or because they weren't the coolest kid in the neighbourhood anymore. They lost it because clients could find similar content anywhere else. Once P5 or Adobe have a better selection of content at attractive prices Shutter will loose their leadership too. Give it time and it will happen.
Their bosses will get their nice fat bonuses the same as Hellman & Friedman sucked Getty dry. But if I had to bet on Shutter in a 5 years timeframe my position would be definitely bearish.........Once you f.ck up your suppliers in such a disripectful way they have done trust is broken forever and people will move out the same way they did with Getty.
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Why would they go anywhere?
Well, we hope they will. Because the whole idea behind boycott is to reduce a stream of fresh content on SS, so customers realize they can find better files elsewhere, and go. Haven't you realized that yet?
We also hope it will be Adobe. But, if it turns out to be Istock, the whole sacrifice and effort would be for someone elses benefit (istock and Istock exclusives). That would be almost tragicomical.
-
I have been looking at the weekly uploads to SS. Usually they get over 2 million new photos every week.
At the moment it is 1.2 million.
I wonder if those who do not want to disable ports are perhaps ready to simply withhold uploads for a while?
Many people really need the income and prbably cannot afford to just shut of their ports with 6 days notice.
But withholding content for now and to bring that upload number visibly down, should be an easier sacrifice.
Also might bring some reality to out of touch admins who think the 1.2 million producer community is made up of upload monkeys that automatically upload no matter what the situation.
Overall agencies that pay badly, get very little content and and thenproducer community shifts upload streams very rationally and quickly elsewhere.
The customers tend to follow.
I sincerly hope SS can be made to see that cutting income drastically in the middle of a pandemic is not a good business move and bringing on an international online crap storm against their own company not an effictient marketing tool.
They should just drop the new rate card, keep things as they are and revisit that idea middle of next year, when corona is over.
Look at the bottom of „image home“ or „footage home“
https://www.shutterstock.com/ (https://www.shutterstock.com/)
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
And again what makes you think all agencies offer the same quality/concept/style or buyers don't care? […]
So, if we are speaking about microstock:
- Maybe the fact that most of the contributors have their images on at least 5 different platforms?
- Maybe the fact that no one is irreplaceable?
You know I have worked for decades for magazines and advertising agencies, as Art director, and when we couldn't find what we were looking for somewhere, we'd look for it somewhere else, and we'd (almost) always find it... it's as simple as that.
In cases where it was impossible to find a specific image, a photographer or illustrator was hired to do it.
When you get into the microstock business as a contributor, the first thing you have to do is stop thinking that you're the center of the world...
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
And again what makes you think all agencies offer the same quality/concept/style or buyers don't care? […]
So, if we are speaking about microstock:
- Maybe the fact that most of the contributors have their images on at least 5 different platforms?
- Maybe the fact that no one is irreplaceable?
You know I have worked for decades for magazines and advertising agencies, as Art director, and when we couldn't find what we were looking for somewhere, we'd look for it somewhere else, and we'd (almost) always find it... it's as simple as that.
In cases where it was impossible to find a specific image, a photographer or illustrator was hired to do it.
When you get into the microstock business as a contributor, the first thing you have to do is stop thinking that you're the center of the world...
Right. No one in this scene is irreplaceable. How I see it: customers are trying to find an image (or video) that helps them tell their story which is very seldom one very specific image. Shutterstock's database is meanwhile loaded with plenty of similar images about nearly every topic that's commercially relevant. They can take that hit. In fact, as someone mentioned before, a cleaner and less saturated database might actually be a good thing for as well customers (less floundering through similar images), remaining contributors (less competition, higher download volumes) and Shutterstock itself (more customer satisfaction, less operational costs in forms of storage and reviewing capacity).
That said, we'll have to wait and see how it turns out in the long term, because newer trends might suffer from less uploading to Shutterstock. I'm wondering how iStock/Getty database is really impacted by this. Crafted Shutter's channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwoU327B927MD49NNf16gxw/videos)) mentioned this briefly in one of his video's, by claiming that newer trends are underrepresented on iStock/Getty compared to other agencies.
-
Are we the center of the world? not by a mile!
Are we the center of Microstock? you bet we are!
SS can take a hit? good for them!
Can those high earners take a hit because you seem to forget on Jan 1st each year it's a reset for everyone, back to square one, well according to SS anyway because I know deals are being made between contributors and agencies, hell I even made one myself way back when I was still with a certain agency.
Stop acting like Cattle!
-
Are we the center of the world? not by a mile!
Are we the center of Microstock? you bet we are!
SS can take a hit? good for them!
Can those high earners take a hit because you seem to forget on Jan 1st each year it's a reset for everyone, back to square one, well according to SS anyway because I know deals are being made between contributors and agencies, hell I even made one myself way back when I was still with a certain agency.
Stop acting like Cattle!
Except those high earners aren’t in the same class as the rest of the herd. They have leverage, and their earnings won’t get reset because yes, they will make special deals. Shutterstock is culling the herd.
-
Are we the center of the world? not by a mile!
Are we the center of Microstock? you bet we are!
SS can take a hit? good for them!
Can those high earners take a hit because you seem to forget on Jan 1st each year it's a reset for everyone, back to square one, well according to SS anyway because I know deals are being made between contributors and agencies, hell I even made one myself way back when I was still with a certain agency.
Stop acting like Cattle!
Except those high earners aren’t in the same class as the rest of the herd. They have leverage, and their earnings won’t get reset because yes, they will make special deals. Shutterstock is culling the herd.
Which brings me back to why some of you think these high earners or factories got everything covered? similar quality, concept, style, location, models, editorial? close is good enough? They also have the capability to get into people's minds and copy their thoughts? I don't feel threatened by these factories or high earners because I know they copy but only get halfway. Halfway might be good for some buyers but far from good to others.
Anyway I've told people to take some time off from this mess so I will take my own advice ;)
Have a great weekend peeps n take care!
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649)
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521)
Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793) still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image! :)
I think this could get lost because of a typo making it all look like a quote and hiding Anja_Kaiser's response.
Just wanted to highlight it and say thanks to one of microstock's all time best selling artists!
Thanks for the heads-up! Just edited the original one. :)
-
My video sales this year on Pond5 platform are 3x higher than on SS. Therefore, deleting all my videos from SS and moving to Pond5 Exclusive instead of accepting reduced pay rate of 15% makes sense to me.
On the other hand, my photo contributor level currently is 4 with pay rate of 30% and potentially 35% by the end of the year, therefore I will keep my portfolio active :-\
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
The agencies know who the buyers are, who has come and gone over the years. Shutterstock have not been able to compete with Istock on subs until now so have only had half a product with which to compete. Both are now able to trash the competition with discounting and if they compete with each other heavy discounting. This will also trash you returns.
Don't let them chase market share with your images, because there will be either only two dogs left in the race when they are finished or the other agencies will have to join them in the fight.
-
thats not so much vote :(
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Why would they go anywhere?
That’s the big question. Why would any of the customers who have learned how to navigate SS, have become accustomed to the service levels at SS leave when their deals will, for all intents and purposes, get sweeter? To me the impact to SS is meaningful defection, solid negative impact on social media and even mainstream media if possible. That might mitigate or soften new future customers from signing up with them. The contributor defection is the biggest hit and it has to be significant to make any real impact. And it has to be high impact portfolios that are big revenue generators for SS. The publicity angle only sticks for a short time. Contributor defection is/can be permanent.
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
idk. I personally have the Adobe Sub for pure convenience as I'm sure many creatives do. Same bill, same apps. Literally 3 clicks to have what you need.
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649)
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521)
Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793) still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image! :)
That's a pretty amazing total - congratulations!
If you're planning to talk about that on twitter, that's great. Do you not tweet? :) Out of curiosity, how do you know about it being their most sold image - I didn't know of a way to get stats like that.
By the way, the rest of your portfolio is lovely too
-
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.
In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649)
I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521 (https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521)
Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793) still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image! :)
That's a pretty amazing total - congratulations!
If you're planning to talk about that on twitter, that's great. Do you not tweet? :) Out of curiosity, how do you know about it being their most sold image - I didn't know of a way to get stats like that.
By the way, the rest of your portfolio is lovely too
Thank you Jo Ann! :)
SS used to have a "100 top selling images" page until a couple of years ago and this set of mine was no.1 in there for several years, until they shut it down. (I still have some screenshots somewhere.) I've never heard of someone (or an image) having outpaced those numbers - I actually can't be absolutely sure, though. I simply think such wouldn't be do-able again today, no matter the quality or originality of an image. Also, I posted a thread on Shutterstock's forums as soon as the file closed in on a total of $20,000. Alex (one of the forum's moderators whom I also met in person in NY back in the days) was around and commented, but didn't mention something to top that.
However: I'm not entirely sure - and if someone's image performed better than that: CONGRATS! :) - but I think there aren't too many close to or even better than that.
This isn't about bragging, anyway. Things were different at that time, I had a load of good luck and today I'm just someone with a tiny port who doesn't do micro anymore. :) I don't "count", either. Shutterstock won't even notice my portfolio fading away. I simply thought such might be worth mentioning in our interest. :)
I do have an account on Twitter, but that isn't quite "my" platform. Honestly, I don't like it for a reason (or two *g) - rather a visual person here. I'm on Insta and Pinterest - and Facebook ..., if I need to. :)
I might use Twitter in this particular case, though.
-
Just a thought (question):
by deactivating the portfolio on June 1, isn't there a risk of not receiving the earnings for May that should be paid at least in June?
And if this is the case, isn't it better to wait until you have been paid before you deactivate your portfolio?
I don't really trust Shutterstock any more these days...
-
I don't really trust Shutterstock any more these days...
You and several million others.
-
Just a thought (question):
by deactivating the portfolio on June 1, isn't there a risk of not receiving the earnings for May that should be paid at least in June?
And if this is the case, isn't it better to wait until you have been paid before you deactivate your portfolio?
That's my plan. At the moment, I'm not all that far from my next payout. And when I do receive that payout, I'll deactivate my port. Better to be safe than sorry.
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
The agencies know who the buyers are, who has come and gone over the years. Shutterstock have not been able to compete with Istock on subs until now so have only had half a product with which to compete. Both are now able to trash the competition with discounting and if they compete with each other heavy discounting. This will also trash you returns.
The next step is to introduce exclusivity, there is no way they can compete with Istock without that move. If that's on the horizon Adobe should react faster and introduce exclusivity right now, because this is the right moment for that.
-
Just a thought (question):
by deactivating the portfolio on June 1, isn't there a risk of not receiving the earnings for May that should be paid at least in June?
And if this is the case, isn't it better to wait until you have been paid before you deactivate your portfolio?
That's my plan. At the moment, I'm not all that far from my next payout. And when I do receive that payout, I'll deactivate my port. Better to be safe than sorry.
Yes, I will do that too.
I know that I have said that I will disable my portfolio tomorrow, but I have had an unexpected series of EL and S&O, and I don't want to risk to lose these earning.
It's a bit like Shutterstock is courting me to stay... But no, I wait, I take the money, and I get the hеll out! :D
-
Waiting to take the money is a good point.
If they really delete you from the platform for using the off switch they keep all your money.
It is amazing how drastic their corporate culture has changed. They had the most liberal work environment. Now they go after the little people who protest having their income cut abruptly with 6 days notice during a pandemic.
The name is the same, but below is something radically different.
And Oringer approves all these changes. It could not happen without him.
-
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.
I largely agree and normally I accept these changes as an inevitable result of market forces. I have never come so close though to pulling my port though as what SS have done and particularly the way they have done it is shocking. I fully get why many people have had enough and are bailing out.
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
The agencies know who the buyers are, who has come and gone over the years. Shutterstock have not been able to compete with Istock on subs until now so have only had half a product with which to compete. Both are now able to trash the competition with discounting and if they compete with each other heavy discounting. This will also trash you returns.
The next step is to introduce exclusivity, there is no way they can compete with Istock without that move. If that's on the horizon Adobe should react faster and introduce exclusivity right now, because this is the right moment for that.
You'd be crazy to accept exclusivity with SS when you've seen they are happy to slash commissions with a few days notice.
-
People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
The agencies know who the buyers are, who has come and gone over the years. Shutterstock have not been able to compete with Istock on subs until now so have only had half a product with which to compete. Both are now able to trash the competition with discounting and if they compete with each other heavy discounting. This will also trash you returns.
The next step is to introduce exclusivity, there is no way they can compete with Istock without that move. If that's on the horizon Adobe should react faster and introduce exclusivity right now, because this is the right moment for that.
You'd be crazy to accept exclusivity with SS when you've seen they are happy to slash commissions with a few days notice.
I know, but, they could do it soon, if that new CEO is obsessed with Getty performance.
-
I fear that Shutterstock is ready and waiting for this, and that this planned group deactivation of content is expected and will actually end up being another win for their bottom line.
There have been some contributors reporting that "deleted" content in their Shutterstock portfolios, which they had removed/deactivated up to two months earlier, was still searchable (at least on Google), clickable, able to be added to a cart and presumably able to be purchased. With an officially deactivated portfolio, this appears to mean that Shutterstock would retain 100% of those sales, adding insult to injury. So, if this is accurate, what all this mass deactivation may potentially do is just boost their profits without any noticeable loss in content options to the customers, depending on how they search for it. Not exactly the goal we're looking for, I'm guessing.
In my personal experience, after deleting the last of my content from iStock in 2012, they were still selling that content four years later on partner platforms. When I discovered this, I had to put up a bit of a fight to get paid for the back sales that occurred in that time (which I was surprised they did pay) and to finally persuade them to take it all down, completely. Although I'm still not entirely sure they have, eight years later.
Maybe someone with better legalese translation abilities than myself can decipher Shutterstock's terms & conditions and determine if this retaining and selling of deactivated or deleted content is in any way a violation of their own contract or if something about that practice violates any laws. Something real that the dirtbags at Shutterstock can be called out on, with actual legal repercussions.
-
Be careful - once you turn your port off your images no longer appear in catalogue manager. If there were some files you wanted to delete you won't be able to until you turn your portfolio back on. That can take quite a while. Turning ports off could end up becoming a trap for some.
-
...I might use Twitter in this particular case, though.
If you decide you'd rather not and would like me to tweet about it on your behalf, let me know. It's always best if it's the person themselves talking about their work, but if that image is disabled, that's "news" worth talking about (and I grabbed a watermarked JPEG in case) so I will as a back-up plan.
-
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.
I largely agree and normally I accept these changes as an inevitable result of market forces. I have never come so close though to pulling my port though as what SS have done and particularly the way they have done it is shocking. I fully get why many people have had enough and are bailing out.
Hi Paul,
my opinion evolved ;).
I turned off video today, because I really want to protect those files. Selling them for 60 cents is not attractive. I left photos on to collect some data and in the faint hope that they come to their senses and come back to us with a sensible solution.
Mostly I will focus on uploading elsewhere. But I am not sending new content to SS until this issue is resolved.
But since the managers have all gone into hiding under blankets and are to scared to talk to us, there isn‘t much hope.
They would probably prefer to bring their own company down before publicly admitting they made a terrible mistake.
We all know the type. Insecure to the core, unable to communicate in public or online, always blaming others, no creative ideas and thinks intimidating people and kicking them out is „leadership“.
Maybe they will surprise us after all...but the total silence and ghosting of contributors speaks volumes.
-
Maybe someone with better legalese translation abilities than myself can decipher Shutterstock's terms & conditions and determine if this retaining and selling of deactivated or deleted content is in any way a violation of their own contract or if something about that practice violates any laws. Something real that the dirtbags at Shutterstock can be called out on, with actual legal repercussions.
This is written in their TOS:
Shutterstock shall use reasonable efforts to cause Content removed from or opted out from Shutterstock Websites to be removed from the websites of any Shutterstock affiliates or partners (including co-branded websites) within ninety (90) days of the removal of the subject Content from the Shutterstock Websites.
They allow themselves 90 days and a reasonable effort to remove your content on their websites and affiliates.
Reasonable efforts. I don't even know what that is. They probably don't have much control over their affiliate partners. Guess you'll have to prove in court their negligence and nobody's gonna go to court for this.
If you want your portfolio gone, best thing you can do from my point of view is delete your images, but keep your account active. Any income from images still lingering around on or SS or affiliate sites will probably still be redirected to your account.
-
Disabling initiated...
-
Disabling initiated...
Brava!
-
...I might use Twitter in this particular case, though.
If you decide you'd rather not and would like me to tweet about it on your behalf, let me know. It's always best if it's the person themselves talking about their work, but if that image is disabled, that's "news" worth talking about (and I grabbed a watermarked JPEG in case) so I will as a back-up plan.
Done. :) But thanks, anyway, Jo Ann! (Just followed you on Twitter, too.)
And:
-
I fear that Shutterstock is ready and waiting for this, and that this planned group deactivation of content is expected and will actually end up being another win for their bottom line.
There have been some contributors reporting that "deleted" content in their Shutterstock portfolios, which they had removed/deactivated up to two months earlier, was still searchable (at least on Google), clickable, able to be added to a cart and presumably able to be purchased. With an officially deactivated portfolio, this appears to mean that Shutterstock would retain 100% of those sales, adding insult to injury. So, if this is accurate, what all this mass deactivation may potentially do is just boost their profits without any noticeable loss in content options to the customers, depending on how they search for it. Not exactly the goal we're looking for, I'm guessing.
In my personal experience, after deleting the last of my content from iStock in 2012, they were still selling that content four years later on partner platforms. When I discovered this, I had to put up a bit of a fight to get paid for the back sales that occurred in that time (which I was surprised they did pay) and to finally persuade them to take it all down, completely. Although I'm still not entirely sure they have, eight years later.
Maybe someone with better legalese translation abilities than myself can decipher Shutterstock's terms & conditions and determine if this retaining and selling of deactivated or deleted content is in any way a violation of their own contract or if something about that practice violates any laws. Something real that the dirtbags at Shutterstock can be called out on, with actual legal repercussions.
This had me worried, because I deleted my images a couple of months ago. A google search does indeed still bring up one of my best sellers, and I can follow it to SS, but when you get to the page where you might buy it, you can’t, and it says the image is no longer available. I will continue to do test searches. I deleted my images when they did nothing about the hole in their API that was allowing people to download high rez images.
-
Hi there, it was me who wrote that post, it's my footage that is still searchable on Google
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Weeds+growing+through+concrete+ground+shot+background+stock+footage&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
is the link to the Google search results, it is the
Weeds growing through concrete ground shot background stock footage
I have asked others to see if they can add it to their cart and it seems that they can. I terminated my account over 2 months ago, but I didn't disable the licensing options before I asked for termination so this could have something to do with it, also it is footage and not images that I sold at SS which could also have something to do with it.
-
I've answered that I won't be disabling/deleting my account, but I would have liked a 'stop uploading' option, as that is my current intention.
I will allow my current portfolio to be active through June, just to get an idea of how much much my RPD is affected, (currently Level 5), so that I can gauge the full impact of this move. If it is negative at Level 5 then come January it will be a disaster, so i will defer making any irreversible decisions until July 1st.
-
And Oringer approves all these changes. It could not happen without him.
Of course he's the majority shareholder as far as i can see.
Don't forget the decline started ages ago - the huge library expansion, more and cheaper video packages etc. He's full aware and either agreed or didnt object to it.
-
I guess nobody cares, but here is one more that has deactivated sales. I never thought I would do this.
-
Done. Just under 3,000 videos disabled effective immediately and requested for deletion, plus an email to the head honcho so that he knows exactly how I feel. Moving everything to Pond5 Exclusive.
-
I will do! >:(
-
I also deactivated my sales on the last day of May, and I am really happy I didn't have to see my work being sold for 0.1$. It was a tough decision, after 11 years of SS being my top earner, I think my hair went gray because of this, but I don't regret it.
-
I haven't deleted as I have invested so much time uploading content in SS. I am a wildlife photographer and my sales are pretty low compared to general stock contributors. My content has a more limited market. Some of the content has cost me £700+ in trips to produce. I will not be adding any content to SS but will allow my portfolio to sell in the hope of covering some of my costs. I find in takes a few years to earn the cost of the trip back. I will be uploading new content elsewhere.
When I started uploading my photos some 8 years ago, I had 11 sites. This has reduced over the years. Some didn't sell well and some treated their contributors badly. I now have 3 sites I upload to. I don't see it improving.
I got my first 10c today on a £500+ trip. Stock in not an option for me to make money any more let alone cover my costs.
:(
-
It's a personal and difficult decission I don't like to be thinking about, but if I don't do anything, they win completely.
-
Microstock agencies are one of the main reasons why making decent money by selling stock has become more and more difficult. You, as Shutterstock contributors, have a large part of responsibility for this situation and now you whine because Shutterstock is unfair with you ! BLAME YOURSELF for accepting contributing to these sites and selling photos for peanuts.
-
It's over.
At this point the only decission is to remain in the sh.i.t.t..y ones or not. That's it. We can't do anything against this new normality.
Companies are not humans, they don't have feelings.
-
I think my hair went gray because of this, but I don't regret it.
LOL!
As one whose hair went gray long before SS made this stupid/greedy move — and also as one who shut off my images over the weekend — I can tell you this:
There's life after both GRAY HAIR and SHITTERSTOCK!
:D :D :D :D :D
-
I guess nobody cares, but here is one more that has deactivated sales. I never thought I would do this.
me too
this is terrible
-
Yes I will. I'm not going to sell my good photos for 0.10 USD, I am not an idiot!
-
I think my hair went gray because of this, but I don't regret it.
LOL!
As one whose hair went gray long before SS made this stupid/greedy move — and also as one who shut off my images over the weekend — I can tell you this:
There's life after both GRAY HAIR and SHITTERSTOCK!
:D :D :D :D :D
Yes it was a greedy move. Noone should support something like this.
Thank you for the kind words, and for taking action.
-
I think my hair went gray because of this, but I don't regret it.
LOL!
As one whose hair went gray long before SS made this stupid/greedy move — and also as one who shut off my images over the weekend — I can tell you this:
There's life after both GRAY HAIR and SHITTERSTOCK!
:D :D :D :D :D
Yes it was a greedy move. Noone should support something like this.
Thank you for the kind words, and for taking action.
Unfortunately people continue to upload on the site.
Does anyone know a good hacker? :D
-
I asked them how much time it takes to take down all the photos, and they said that 72h. Let's see what happend.
-
How long does it take since last Licensing options change to be able to change them again? I changed them yesterday at 10 AM local time but disabled only video. Now when I'm trying to disable photos as well - it keep saying that I did it too many times today, try later.
-
Microstock agencies are one of the main reasons why making decent money by selling stock has become more and more difficult. You, as Shutterstock contributors, have a large part of responsibility for this situation and now you whine because Shutterstock is unfair with you ! BLAME YOURSELF for accepting contributing to these sites and selling photos for peanuts.
For heavens sake! Give this old saw a rest.
The "old school" stock photographers took work away from assignment photographers. There was good money in that too, but that didn't stop any of you from raking in the cash selling badly isolated apples and oranges for $500+ a pop (along with some really good work).
Could you dredge up some angst about how digital cameras ruined things for darkroom professionals?
And how exactly would anything have been any better if Shutterstock weren't around? Getty was ripping off photographers before Shutterstock was a glint in anyone's eye.
For what it's worth, the microstock setup was initially entirely reasonable and as fair as having both Woolworth and Neiman Marcus in the retail sphere, or Timex and Rolex in the watch market. The fact that Shutterstock grew up to be a money-grabbing public company that has forgotten that 100% of its content is owned by others (with no contract requiring it to be there for any period of time) has nothing to do with its origins in creating a new market for stock images & video.
It has gone horribly wrong, but selling higher volumes of images & video to small and medium sized businesses at a lower price is an entirely reasonable business proposition. Your arguments that we're all whiners just don't comport with any facts.
-
I thought this, but I preferred not to waste time. Totally agree Jo Ann. Are you going to continue selling on SS?
-
I thought this, but I preferred not to waste time. Totally agree Jo Ann. Are you going to continue selling on SS?
I disabled my portfolio May 31 and by yesterday afternoon I was #goneJune1!
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265775972386668544
-
Wow! you have it very clear.
I have doubted this morning, but my first 0,1 sale help me to give the step. But, Are you still collaborating with istock? I say this by your signature. They pay also cents, sure?
I only uploaded actively to SS, AS and Pond5. Now, I don't really know where else to go because the alternatives don't convince me. (I think I have tried them all already).
-
...But, Are you still collaborating with istock? I say this by your signature. They pay also cents, sure?
Yes and no. I do have my account there still and I have 100 or so images that I shot at an iStockalypse when I was an iStock exclusive. The terms of the deal (they provided the settings, models etc.) were that you could only upload the work to iStock.
As I can't license those images anywhere else, the loss to me of leaving them there to receive the utterly pathetic royalties iStock now pays independents is nil. It also gives me a way to see what they're up to :) I haven't uploaded there since I shut down almost all of my portfolio over the Getty-Google fiasco in 2013 (https://www.digitalbristles.com/leaving-istock-sadly/).
-
We provide the options below to deactivate/delete your contributor account:
Opting out of sales (recommended option)
Opting out of sales will remove your content from online display, but keeps your account active and ensures that your earnings payment will be made when you reach the minimum payout level. Your referral earnings will also continue to accumulate. Opting in or out of sales allows you to quickly reinstate your previously approved content if you decide to return to Shutterstock in the future.
To opt out of sales, log into your account and navigate to the Account Settings page from the drop-down menu under your name in the top right corner of the page. Scroll down to the section How can we license your work? and select No for the sales options.
Deactivating your account
Deactivating your account removes your content from online display and bars you from access to your account and participation in our forums. If you wish to return at a later time, the account can usually be reactivated with the help of our care team. We will pay any outstanding earnings above $1, but you will need to contact us in advance to process this payment.
Contact us if you wish to deactivate your account or if you wish to reactivate an old account. Please do not create another account without contacting us first, as this is not permitted per the Contributor Terms of Service.
Deleting your account
You have the right to access and correct, or delete your Personal Information and privacy preferences at any time. You can immediately change your profile here or request a deletion of your personal information from our privacy team - [email protected]. Deleting your account will permanently remove your content from online display, bar access to your account and participation in our forums. You can find detailed information on our Privacy Policy.
-
i just disabled mine :'(
-
I deactivated my portfolio of 10K
-
By the end of the year, shutterstock will be on it's knees.
Thousands of Portfolio's are being deleted at this moment along with thousands being disabled, this along with no new sign up's, who is going to work for 10c, means they are going to go crashing out of the market.
Anyone in this market is going to be bad mouthing them to every client they have, along with recommending every other Agency but them.
As a old saying goes, Money Talks, Talent Walks, I know this means something different, but in a convoluted way it sums up what is happening to them.
-
I disabled my videos and will go for exclusivity on pond5 as soon as shutterstock clears all my videos.
-
OK my pay period ended my earnings zeroed out and my earnings are now being calculated. Is it safe to disable my portfolio now that the pay period is over? I'm concerned after reading this on Shutterstock's site (attachment). They owe me close to $300. I'm very anxious to disable my portfolio and get out of there. I'm seeing several 10 cent downloads.
-
I don't know. Just in case I disabled my videos and I will disable pictures after payout. I was at 0.38, it is disgracefully low now. This is humiliating. Absolutely unacceptable!
-
Waiting until the May payment is on the bank, then disable port...only photos no video(thank goodness).
Gone from $300-400/month in 2015/16 to $100/month now. Half or one third of that is unacceptable and I'm not going to let them earn off me to that extent.
Hopefully if enough of their contributor base denies them the ability to make out like bandits from their hard work, their buyers will desert in droves due to lack of decent content. Then the senior execs don't get their bonus which is what it's all about anyway.
-
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. (Actually even more, given that there are still people who upload instead.) Not (yet) enough to hurt them, but sure for a clear signal in their direction. :)
-
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.
-
.
-
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.
I just thought the same and edited my post accordingly while you were writing. ;D
-
I have nearly $60K in lifetime sales. I see that on most of my image sales these first two days of June I am making 10 cents. TEN CENTS! Two days ago the minimum I made was 38 cents. I felt I was being taken advantage of then. Now I feel completely violated. I will almost certainly be deleting my account and have already decided to stop uploading. I used to recommend many people to SS. Now I will suggest they avoid it, unless of course they like being a low end prostitute. This is awful and just not right.
-
Done. Just disabled my whole portfolio. It felt so empowering to be able to have integrity and exercise it. I can certainly live without $0.10 a download. First they showed me that they don’t need me when they cut my royalty by 2/3 and so I showed them that I need them even less when I walked completely. Good riddens and peace out.
-
Already disabled. 10 cent sales. No thanks.
-
Just pulled all of mine. 0 love loss there. Bye bye Shuttercrook.
-
There's a new thread that appeared on Russian contributors forum called "Who disabled their portfolios? How big was it?". And wow, it's already 7 pages long! And most of disabled portfolios are just massive!!! (10k+, 25k+, 50k+). I'm impressed.
if russian speaking community was somewhat passive a few days ago, its not anymore. ;)
-
Checked the numbers on the 27th of May and again today... total images on SS have increased by 0.2%, and total videos have decreased by 0.36%. Just an FYI.
-
Just pulled all of mine. 0 love loss there. Bye bye Shuttercrook.
SHUTTERCROOK! Hey, that's every bit as good as SHITTERSTOCK!!
Thanks for pulling your port. It's nice to see our community standing together.
-
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?
-
Disabled mine...bye bye Shutterstock
-
OK my pay period ended my earnings zeroed out and my earnings are now being calculated. Is it safe to disable my portfolio now that the pay period is over? I'm concerned after reading this on Shutterstock's site (attachment). They owe me close to $300. I'm very anxious to disable my portfolio and get out of there. I'm seeing several 10 cent downloads.
While I have already disabled my video port I don’t want to give them any reason to withold my money which is a few hundred (coming from over 1k a few years ago go figure)
While I hate seeing those 0.10 sales dropping in I am also going to wait until payout. If Im lucky I will have already reached 35 dollars again and I can disable my portfolio while lowering payout setting to 35. Should they then continue to act like crooks they can keep those 35 dollars.
It’s good to see people are trying to be as tactical as they are.
-
Checked the numbers on the 27th of May and again today... total images on SS have increased by 0.2%, and total videos have decreased by 0.36%. Just an FYI.
I doubt those counters are a reflection of anything in regards to the vast number of contributors now either pulling their portfolios or shutting down their Shutterstench accounts completely. It’s probably just a simple running counter that counts the total number of images and videos that have been uploaded since the beginning and it doesn’t reflect when images and videos get removed from the archive.
I think over the long term the reality is that Shutterstingy will end up losing about 50% of its contributors from this pressing of the self-destruct button. Greed has often been the cause of demise in many instances throughout world history. This event will likely prove to be another reconfirmation of that narrative. Or a more simplified and philosophical way of looking at it: “Karma is only a b*tch when you are.”
-
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 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 and a bigger selection won't make them buy more sunflower images if one is all they need.
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.
-
24h after I disabled the account, my images are still online.
-
24h after I disabled the account, my images are still online.
They will be gone soon (for me it took about 2 days).
-
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?
Amazing Jo Ann, seems the investing community is taking notice. The shared intelligence bit is very true and at this time when the indexes themselves seem overbought investors will be wary of where they invest.
Warren buffet and many other big investors have moved to cash holding and others will do so too if they find any hint of weakness in a stock.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
A lot of people wont be able to disable straight away but will instead stop uploading. If we can get enough buyers to other agencies before January the sting of losing the lower percentage then will be even less.
-
0,10$, 0,20$, 0,13$, 0,14$, sales have plummeted for me and those that I get are mostly less than 0,20$, with that pace I'm not even going to reach payout. I'll wait till the end of month and then I'm out of that shithole.
I'm level 4 btw.
-
Everybody should put in their portfolio description for customers, that they should buy images at adobe stock.
-
Deactivated mine right away - 4000 photos and vectors
-
Everybody should put in their portfolio description for customers, that they should buy images at adobe stock.
I would not advice to do that, not with Shutterstock's tactics to permanently terminate accounts if they do something they don't like and that would probably be on top of their list.
If people are 100% certain that they will not want to return to SS ever, even not should they possibly change their roality structure again, then yes, but I assume these people would have terminated their account permanently anyways, not just disabled sales.
-
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 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 and a bigger selection won't make them buy more sunflower images if one is all they need.
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.
This maybe so for the likes of Sunflowers, the real talent and creative work will be deleted and the content that remains will become stale.
The buyers are usually designers and they are discerning in what they choose.
Sunflowers maybe OK for the public but designers always want more and are generally willing to pay a premium to get what they want.
Shutterstock without buyers are dead in the water.
-
I monitor at least 100 searches of interest in terms of saturation to keep track of supply vs demand. After all those people "deactivating" I ended up seeing a steady increase in shutterstock saturation this week in all my hot searches like nothing ever changed. If 60% of contributors had deactivated portfolios like stated here, it would have reflected on the number of the provided images.
Especially for newbies, don't believe everything you read in here. I don't think everybody is honest. Many are here just to collect information and not in spirit to team up.
-
Everybody should put in their portfolio description for customers, that they should buy images at adobe stock.
Please don't, it apparently causes an immidiate portfolio ban
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
-
This maybe so for the likes of Sunflowers, the real talent and creative work will be deleted and the content that remains will become stale.
The buyers are usually designers and they are discerning in what they choose.
Sunflowers maybe OK for the public but designers always want more and are generally willing to pay a premium to get what they want.
Shutterstock without buyers are dead in the water.
I just named sunflowers as en extreme example, because that's certainly an oversaturated topic. (over 770.000 search results on SS)
But I am sure it can be applied to everything, even if it is on a smaller sale.
Take a more specific topic, let's say "Woman sitting on chair at dentist". That still gives me over 27.000 results. Do customers need a selection of 27.000 such photos? Certainly just as little as 1000 of these would be enough to let a customer find something he needs, probably even just 100.
Of course a lot of quality photographers who have to pay for high end gear, models, studios, etc. might leave. But even if half of them leave Shutterstock, they are still left with 13.500 photos of women sitting in chairs at dentists. It's hard to imagine that a customer looking for a photo of a woman at a dentist can't find a suitable image with 13.500 images to pick from and even harder to imagine that the customer will even go through all 135 pages of search results. He will probably pick the best he can find for his purpose on the first 1-5 pages and everything more than that is just sead weight for SS.
I wish it was different, but I am afraid a lot of contributors here overestimate how much Shutterstock cares about deactivated photos or accounts.
-
I monitor at least 100 searches of interest in terms of saturation to keep track of supply vs demand. After all those people "deactivating" I ended up seeing a steady increase in shutterstock saturation this week in all my hot searches like nothing ever changed. If 60% of contributors had deactivated portfolios like stated here, it would have reflected on the number of the provided images.
Especially for newbies, don't believe everything you read in here. I don't think everybody is honest. Many are here just to collect information and not in spirit to team up.
I think a large chunk is just waiting for their money to be paid out. Its crazy how SS has been reacting to things
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
-
This maybe so for the likes of Sunflowers, the real talent and creative work will be deleted and the content that remains will become stale.
The buyers are usually designers and they are discerning in what they choose.
Sunflowers maybe OK for the public but designers always want more and are generally willing to pay a premium to get what they want.
Shutterstock without buyers are dead in the water.
I just named sunflowers as en extreme example, because that's certainly an oversaturated topic. (over 770.000 search results on SS)
But I am sure it can be applied to everything, even if it is on a smaller sale.
Take a more specific topic, let's say "Woman sitting on chair at dentist". That still gives me over 27.000 results. Do customers need a selection of 27.000 such photos? Certainly just as little as 1000 of these would be enough to let a customer find something he needs, probably even just 100.
Of course a lot of quality photographers who have to pay for high end gear, models, studios, etc. might leave. But even if half of them leave Shutterstock, they are still left with 13.500 photos of women sitting in chairs at dentists. It's hard to imagine that a customer looking for a photo of a woman at a dentist can't find a suitable image with 13.500 images to pick from.
I wish it was different, but I am afraid a lot of contributors here overestimate how much Shutterstock cares about deactivated photos or accounts.
Dentist imagery will become out of date, within five years, all industries move on, when you are dealing with clients in the dentistry or medical sectors the demand that the imagery is up to date.
This scenario applies across the board of all professions.
As a designer I can tell you that when I search for imagery I am looking for the best content and will not accept second rate pictures, in fact I will go to extreme lengths to make sure I get them.
Shutterstock simply do not understand what they are dealing with, there main contracts will be with bean counters in large agencies, but in the studio's of those companies the art directors and designers will put pressure on them to move, when they can't get the content they need.
Smaller advertising and design agencies will just move there buying, not because of the content, but because of the ethics, most designers are ethically minded.
This leaves the large Corporations who simply don't care, but over time, maybe as long as five years, they will move because the lead and pressure would have been set in place by the add and design agencies, some of these people will cross migrate to in house design departments, bringing this thinking with them.
Shutterstock is finished, it will take about five years, as they turn from the shiny out of town Shopping Mall that had everything, to a run down and out of date place with a lack of great content.
The thing with all shopping Malls is they have lead retailers, without these they are nothing and as the talent is now walking this is exactly what is happening to Shutterstock.
-
Dentist imagery will become out of date, within five years, all industries move on, when you are dealing with clients in the dentistry or medical sectors the demand that the imagery is up to date.
You can continue to argue against every completely random example I picked to get a point across, it's not changing anything. Just pick an example yourself and think about whether you think it will make a difference to customers and Shuttesrtock whether they have 100.000 images of that topic in their database or "just" 50.000. images.
-
Well, if we argue with your arguments, than SS doesn't need any more images because pretty much everything is in their databse, right?
-
For most people who want a little image to stick on a website, blog or small article im sure they do have enough.
Whilst i agree some things are time sensitive (Medical, aviation, tech etc) a lot arent.
A palm tree on a beach is a palm tree on a beach regardless of 2005 or 2020 for example.
So *most* is likely covered. There'll still be enough contributors to top-up their database. As much as we'd like to see it, SS image library is going to continue to grow.
Not everyone spends ages looking for exactly the right image. I know a lot who buy off stock and they're writing articles and so on with deadlines. They just want the image that'll do the job to illustrate whats needed in the shortest possible time, submit the article then get started on the next. Quality hasnt got to be great, just adequate.
Thats the difference between a designer and an author.
SS quite likely will satisfy the latter. And they'll push offset/custom for the rest.
-
You can continue to argue against every completely random example I picked to get a point across, it's not changing anything. Just pick an example yourself and think about whether you think it will make a difference to customers and Shuttesrtock whether they have 100.000 images of that topic in their database or "just" 50.000. images.
You are also discounting the effect the numbers will have on investors. Shittystick made the growth of its collection one of its main pillars in pitching to investors over the last 18 months. Now, especially if other agencies totals increase, they are going to be in the same awkward position as the UK government. For seven weeks the government briefings showed how UK COVID-19 cases and deaths were in the middle of worldwide comparisons. Then the cases and deaths rose above all other countries and, suddenly, the figures stopped being displayed in the press conferences because ‘they were no longer relevant’. Shittystick will have the same problem in reverse about growth in their collection.
Whether it’s dentists, tomatoes, sunflowers or marijuana, SS may have plenty of images but who is going to pay for studio time, models and props for the images which really sell if the return is 10c? And there may be plenty photographers in rural India happy to earn 10c a snap (and may be very good photographers) but they are going to struggle to satisfy requirements of “tall fair-skinned blonde woman in snowy city street” or “village life in Transylvania”.
-
Dentist imagery will become out of date, within five years, all industries move on, when you are dealing with clients in the dentistry or medical sectors the demand that the imagery is up to date.
You can continue to argue against every completely random example I picked to get a point across, it's not changing anything. Just pick an example yourself and think about whether you think it will make a difference to customers and Shuttesrtock whether they have 100.000 images of that topic in their database or "just" 50.000. images.
You are not reading my entire post, or not taking onboard the overall picture, Shutterstock is finished, their content will become dated and stale.
It doesn't matter how many pictures you have of whatever, if they all look pre-2020, designers won't buy them, design and photo styles come and go.
Within 5 years Shutterstock will look very dated, with old content. All the talent will be on other sites, no serious photographer in their right mind will be uploading to them in the Western World.
Designers who buy the pictures are going to change to other sites, not just because the content will be dated, but also because they are generally ethical minded.
-
Dentist imagery will become out of date, within five years, all industries move on, when you are dealing with clients in the dentistry or medical sectors the demand that the imagery is up to date.
You can continue to argue against every completely random example I picked to get a point across, it's not changing anything. Just pick an example yourself and think about whether you think it will make a difference to customers and Shuttesrtock whether they have 100.000 images of that topic in their database or "just" 50.000. images.
You are not reading my entire post, or not taking onboard the overall picture, Shutterstock is finished, their content will become dated and stale.
It doesn't matter how many pictures you have of whatever, if they all look pre-2020, designers won't buy them, design and photo styles come and go.
Within 5 years Shutterstock will look very dated, with old content. All the talent will be on other sites, no serious photographer in their right mind will be uploading to them in the Western World.
Designers who buy the pictures are going to change to other sites, not just because the content will be dated, but also because they are generally ethical minded.
What's the point of arguing about this?
There are many topics with time sensitivity, and many topics with no time sensitivity at all.
Yes, they need to have some fresh things covered.
Yet if a look at my sales a shutterstock even in 2020, most of the pictures sold were shot between 2005 and 2009, even tough i've been uploading constantly since then
-
Just bought a sh*t ton of puts on SSTK. ;D
Forget their new dime per download chump-change royalty program, I’ll be making bank when the bottom falls out of the share price. 8)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's an idea: […]
Thousand of contributors have already closed their account or disabled their portfolio.
-
Here's an idea: […]
Thousand of contributors have already closed their account or disabled their portfolio.
Surely not thousands and surely very small portfolios in the vast majority. As I said, not nearly enough.
-
To all of the above replies...
Honestly the powers that be at Shutterstock won't miss you if you decide to pull your portfolio. Accept it.
If you don't want to sell your work for less than it costs to produce then do the right thing for yourself, get out of Shutterstock for the sake of your own humility. And if your own sense of self worth is in this range, then keep your images up.
Between the incompetent reviewers over the last 6 months, strategies on how to re-submit 2-5 times just to get accepted, and now this 6 day notification of a 60% decrease in royalties, you are only hurting yourself by sticking around.
You think being at level whatever is sh!tty? just wait till January 1 when you all go down to Level 1.
I have more self respect for myself than to do this dance and neither am I a charity to a publicly traded greedy company.
It's your choice folks.
-
You are not reading my entire post, or not taking onboard the overall picture, Shutterstock is finished, their content will become dated and stale.
It doesn't matter how many pictures you have of whatever, if they all look pre-2020, designers won't buy them, design and photo styles come and go.
Yeah, it seems we are talking past each other.
I read that, but on my side of the argument I kept reapeating that "even if 50% of all contributors leave Shutterstock it won't hurt them", because I am 100% convinced that not all will leave, not even the bigger part of them, because for many people this is a main income. So what I am saying is that even if they have 50% less dentist photos (current + newly added in the future, so not outdated), they still have more than enough photos.
-
Here's an idea: […]
Thousand of contributors have already closed their account or disabled their portfolio.
Surely not thousands and surely very small portfolios in the vast majority. As I said, not nearly enough.
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
That doesn't count the big name producers, or video - like eyeidea yesterday - who have an impact beyond their numbers. When a sizeable portion of the saleable content leaves, you have the millions of image spam portfolios which no one cares about as it doesn't sell
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268201397230551040
And later on the morning the number has grown to over 445k removed - over half a mlllion swing in less than a day
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268231587025391617
-
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
-
.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
For me today is the first time that Adobe will outperform SS in exactly 14 years of experience.
-
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. ^^
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. I’m sure many contributors don’t even know what’s 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Buonasera (mi scuserete se scrivo in italiano perchè l'inglese proprio non lo capisco),
sono tentato di disabilitare tutto pure io anche se ho un portofolio piccolo perchè è VERGOGNOSO pagare 0.10 $ una foto come solo ISTOCKPHOTO faceva.
Per adesso mi limiterò ad inviare solo materiale Editoriale che su ADOBE non posso caricare.
Seguo con interesse insieme a voi questo messaggio
Saluti dall'Italia
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 Shutterstock’s 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.
-
I disabled my videos and will go for exclusivity on pond5 as soon as shutterstock clears all my videos.
That´s precisely what I have in mind too.
Seeing that one sale for 10 cent (before I disabled both portfolios) hurts so much - I don´t want to do this. Otherwise it´ll 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.
-
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 don’t 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.
-
Buonasera (mi scuserete se scrivo in italiano perchè l'inglese proprio non lo capisco),
sono tentato di disabilitare tutto pure io anche se ho un portofolio piccolo perchè è VERGOGNOSO pagare 0.10 $ una foto come solo ISTOCKPHOTO faceva.
Per adesso mi limiterò 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, però le vendite sono poche.
-
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.
-
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)
-
Oringer was wrong about exclusivity in microstock, having a base of exclusive contributors is essential today to continue obtaining quality material for customers.
I hope you're right about that, because "going exclusive" is starting to look like the only way to survive in this game.
And even exclusivity is no guarantee that the agency won't screw us over down the road. But right now, it does seem to offer the least bad of several awful options.
-
I made over 1k on SS last month, mostly video. I have done this as my living for the past 10 years. I am happy to say I have disabled my images today and am watching video closely! I am now only submitting to Adobe Stock at this time
-
Very frequent selling image on several agencies, with about 1000 downloads on Shutterstock alone. Top line in relevant search results for "patriotic" and "patriotism" among 800,000 results. Not any more. Not on Shutterstock.
-
I disabled everything while they still owe me a payout. I don’t have any reason to believe I won’t get it and I see no reason to delay disabling. They rightfully owe the money and so they will pay it. Screwing contributors on what they rightfully owe them is not how these large companies operate. It’s my right to disable my portfolio at any time and it doesn’t mean they are no longer obliged to pay me my royalties if and when I do so. No rules have been broken on my side and I have not violated any terms of the supplier agreement.
-
Very frequent selling image on several agencies, with about 1000 downloads on Shutterstock alone. Top line in relevant search results for "patriotic" and "patriotism" among 800,000 results. Not any more. Not on Shutterstock.
Are you on twitter? I see an account for @Atomazul - is that you. You should tweet about that (and where it can be found now)
-
From 4900+ to 68 in 48h:
(https://myscreenshot.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/8bNgI1XXCD.jpg)
I'm even happy. I have read the Pond5 commissions and they pay 50%! normal now seems exceptional to me. Bye SS, I'm worth more.
-
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.
My payout made it to PayPal, so I disabled my portfolio. No more 10 cent downloads.
-
Well, I did it.
I got paid for the month of May.
So I deactivated my portfolios.
I'm curious to know how many have closed their accounts and how many have deactivated their portfolios...
-
Well, I did it.
I got paid for the month of May.
So I deactivated my portfolios.
I'm curious to know how many have closed their accounts and how many have deactivated their portfolios...
I just deactivated over 5,000 images and videos.
Edit. My apologies it is 7,000 assets I removed.
-
Well, I did it.
I got paid for the month of May.
So I deactivated my portfolios.
I'm curious to know how many have closed their accounts and how many have deactivated their portfolios...
I just deactivated over 5,000 images and videos.
Edit. My apologies it is 7,000 assets I removed.
Congratulations!!
That's comforting to feel in good company ;)
(Me too 7000+)
-
Just logged into the site and there was a pop up survey asking me about my experience with them, and numerous questions, finished it with this:-
Sort out how much you are charging your buyers, so that you can pay a decent commission to your contributors, and don’t take advantage of them as you are now doing. Adobe actually increased their commission last year.
Then you had the bonkers idea last year, to change the way we upload Vectors, no other site does this because it is stupid basically, even though every contributor told you this you took no notice.
So I don’t expect you to take any notice of what I have written, but I along with all the other Contributors who make your content are extremely upset at being treated like SLAVES, and you should all be ashamed of yourself’s.
Your CEO Stan Pavlovsky is nothing more than a bean counter who is only interested in ripping off, stealing our money, it is a absolutely appalling way to treat people.
Spend a day or two reading the comments on your Forum and you will see what people think of you.
-
Just a thought (question):
by deactivating the portfolio on June 1, isn't there a risk of not receiving the earnings for May that should be paid at least in June?
And if this is the case, isn't it better to wait until you have been paid before you deactivate your portfolio?
I don't really trust Shutterstock any more these days...
I deactivated my portfolios (images + videos) on 1st of June.
Got my paypal payment for may today.
-
Just a thought (question):
by deactivating the portfolio on June 1, isn't there a risk of not receiving the earnings for May that should be paid at least in June?
And if this is the case, isn't it better to wait until you have been paid before you deactivate your portfolio?
I don't really trust Shutterstock any more these days...
I deactivated my portfolios (images + videos) on 1st of June.
Got my paypal payment for may today.
Same here.
-
You're definitely not alone. I deactivated 7000 assets June 1st. I had a 4 digit ID number at shitterstock if that tells you how long I had been there.
-
The number of images in SS are actually shrinking
June 1 - 326.401.446
June 4 - 325.718.566
Contradictory, the number of "new images this week" increase:
June 1 - 1.146.506
June 4 - 1.157.726
-
I deactivated my video portfolio on June 1 and am watching my photo sales closely...
-
The number of images in SS are actually shrinking
June 1 - 326.401.446
June 4 - 325.718.566
Contradictory, the number of "new images this week" increase:
June 1 - 1.146.506
June 4 - 1.157.726
Not necessarily "contradictory" - this just tells us that people delete/deactivate at a faster rate than others upload. I'm pretty sure a large percentage of contributors hasn't yet noticed what's happening. Some may re-activate their ports within the next couple of days in order to being able to evaluate stats based on their own portfolios, but I guess (hope) the *real* storm is yet to come.
I'll try and keep mine down as long as numbers are decreasing. (I'd actually like to have a look at my own stats, too, but on the other hand I'm almost sure I'm going to permanently delete my account, anyway.)
-
How do you disable your photos? Can't find it.
-
How do you disable your photos? Can't find it.
Go to your account settings. At the bottom right there's a box reading "licensing options". Check "no" for photos and/or video and save. :)
-
922,200 less images than three days ago.
-
So glad we have this forum, I read the latest post and it prompted me to check my settings, turned out I had forgotten to hit save when I disabled my images. Another 7500 images disabled.
-
Disabled
-
After 10 years and with the top tier within close proximity, I disabled both my video and image sales (5000+). It hurt but felt good at the same time. My time passion and effort are worth more than what they are willing to share.
Adobe has been quickly closing the gap in $ with far less assets anyhow.
-
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?
Amazing Jo Ann, seems the investing community is taking notice. The shared intelligence bit is very true and at this time when the indexes themselves seem overbought investors will be wary of where they invest.
Warren buffet and many other big investors have moved to cash holding and others will do so too if they find any hint of weakness in a stock.
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
The investing community also has stock artists
Vanadas Cobalticus will keep educating and sharing information
My analysis app considers sstk to be a fair value at 11 dollars, not 37. It sees the share overvalued by 223%
However, the algorythms cannot factor in an online crap storm.
When sstk publishes their next results and shows more profit because it cut supplier costs, the app will ,of course, consider sstk to be of higher value.
So it is important to get the information out now on what is really going on.
So please keep contributing and informing the investor communitx.
There are many,many other investing boards, facebook groups etc...
So if you get overall involved in the wider investment community and provide real information with links to articles, at some point the banks or brokers that write recommendations will notice.
I suggest to be as factual as possible, maybe do a calculation how expensive media production is. You could link to a series and explain in detail the total cost of hiring models, make up artists, post production and the total number of people hours that goes into a shoot.
Cost of camera and lighting gear, studio rent, software costs, general insurance and other overheads.
Most people have no idea how expensive professional production is.
-
The really interesting thing is how much of an influence does Oringer with his 45% ownership have on the stock price.
Because I am surprised at the current share price, even with the rate change it should be much lower.
By raising profits by cutting suppliers and then aggressively increasing „growth“ by blitz selling nanostock packages all over the world, they can indeed and at least on paper, make the company look very attractive.
-
Here is a paper that analyses crowd intelligence through comments on Seeking alpha.
https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/publications/pdf/salpha-cscw15.pdf
Over the last years I have moved to mostly trade on sentiment instead of just fundamentals. Some stocks go to crazy irrational heights, because the investor community glorifies them.
Other stocks drop radically inspite of great fundamentals becsuse the investor community has convinced itself they have no future,
Eventually, reality always wins and a stock price settles close to the fundamentals.
But it can take several years.
So what I am trying to say: if you get involved in investor communities, not just for sstk, but simply in general, your comments matter and have a real influence.
There are professional companies that routinely scrape these comments and analyse them to predict the direction of markets.
-
Hit them where it hurts and contact their buyers!
I just did on Twitter.
-
i disabled 4000 images and 1000 videos. I know it is just a drop. But every drop matters.
I invite everyone to join the movement at least for sometime that you can afford.
-
I disabled all videos. 1000 videos is not much but everything counts.
-
today i disabled 10.000 images.
0.10
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.10
...
-
Very frequent selling image on several agencies, with about 1000 downloads on Shutterstock alone. Top line in relevant search results for "patriotic" and "patriotism" among 800,000 results. Not any more. Not on Shutterstock.
Are you on twitter? I see an account for @Atomazul - is that you. You should tweet about that (and where it can be found now)
Good idea. Not much of twitterer, as that abandoned profile implies. Waiting for a response from them about getting it back. Might be effective to post a barrage of high quality, eye-catching images with something like #notonshutterstock or #shutterstockdoesnthavethis tags. Constantly try to remind potential customers of what they're missing if they're with or considering Shutterstock, while promoting any companies that offer it's contributors fairer deals.
Meanwhile, I'm spending time that should be used to create, on deleting and moving content around and trying to figure out a strategy moving forward. I've been inspired by those with much higher quality and/or quantity than myself disabling their portfolios and bringing attention to all this. Thank you for that. And while it doesn't look like Shutterstock is interested in walking anything back, I'd like to think that they and their competitors will at least see all this backlash as an inconvenience they'd rather avoid and put more thought and consideration into future decisions. As glaringly naive as that sounds.
-
today i disabled 10.000 images.
0.10
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.10
...
I tweeted about this (with your name obscured). If you want to share yourself on twitter I can retweet that too
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1268951582495748096
-
I got my May payout today. That safely in the bag, I looked at the new RPD since 1st June - it's more or less exactly $ 0,50 - that's close to 20 % less than what I used to get before. Less than half of Adobe's RPD.
And it's not just about the money - in the past five days, I cringed whenever I saw that someone bought one of my vectors and I got $ 0,10 or thereabouts. Ten freaking cents! No way. Making those took time and effort and creativity and they are worth more than that.
That's another account deactivated & another level 5 contributor gone. Goodbye Shutterstock. I hope you burn in hell.
-
May I tell you what I did?
Instead of disabling my images I erased them. I left only my first ones: I confess they were really bad, I was unexperienced about post processing and image composition. I thought "if they have the guts of selling them, they are really good, I don't know if these images deserve 0.10$" But it just happened ! Yesterday I sold an image of many years ago that never sold before ;D.
Okay, seriously speaking I'm going well at Adobe and Alamy and I cannot leave here my best images to compete.
If things get worse everywhere, better sell by myself (as I'm already doing for a particular niche of images), because at that time the agencies will sell only garbage.
-
I think it's a better idea to suspend the content and force them to mantain useless full disks forever 8)
-
I think it's a better idea to suspend the content and force them to mantain useless full disks forever 8)
Probably in three or six months they will tell you that if you keep your portfolio disabled you have to pay for the hosting…
Once greedy, always greedy...
-
Roughly 1,920,000 images deleted or disabled by now. (Within the past couple of days. May be more than that; my port e.g. was already down before we started counting.) Plus, about 800.000 which - otherwise - would have been added.
-
Just disabled everything. It means stock is more or less pointless for me now - well, it has been since June 1, with something like a 60% cut in commission earnings (thanks for the birthday present, SS!).
I don't even believe they are paying anything close to the commission rates they have announced. For about 15 years I was getting 38c, now I get 10c as an alleged 30% commission? That means the actual sales prices is 33c and for 15 years they were paying me more per download than they got. Does anybody believe that? Otherwise they must have cut subscription pack prices by 70% - lucky buyers! ... only I don't believe that.
What I do believe is that the old commission structure was based on a statistical average of the number of downloads actually made from a subscription - perhaps only half the possible total - and the new structure assumes 100% usage of all packs, rather than allowing for actual usage. If that is so, then the 30% level is more like 15% and the 10% level is something like 3%.
I've had more than 140,000 downloads at SS down the years bringing me almost $71,000 so it hurts to disable everything, but not as much as it hurts to see my commissions slashed by around 70%. Even that isn't enough for the greedy filth: in January they plan to cut my 10c commissions down to 3c. That's a 92% pay cut!!!! Who do they think they are kidding?
I really feel quite sick over this. It's possibly worse than anything Istock has ever done to us. You've screwed up big-time SS. With considerable difficulty I will refrain from launching my first ever foul-mouthed tirade, what I would call you is probably worse than you could even imagine.
PS: I see in posts from people who are following this more closely that they have apparently slashed subscription prices and the 10c sales are more than 30% and are some sort of floor under the commission rate - but I don't care, I'm only interested in the monthly payouts that won't be coming any more, the grossly insulting commission structure/levels and the humiliating way they are treating us all.
-
Just disabled everything. It means stock is more or less pointless for me now - well, it has been since June 1, with something like a 60% cut in commission earnings (thanks for the birthday present, SS!).
I don't even believe they are paying anything close to the commission rates they have announced. For about 15 years I was getting 38c, now I get 10c as an alleged 30% commission? That means the actual sales prices is 33c and for 15 years they were paying me more per download than they got. Does anybody believe that? Otherwise they must have cut subscription pack prices by 70% - lucky buyers! ... only I don't believe that.
What I do believe is that the old commission structure was based on a statistical average of the number of downloads actually made from a subscription - perhaps only half the possible total - and the new structure assumes 100% usage of all packs, rather than allowing for actual usage. If that is so, then the 30% level is more like 15% and the 10% level is something like 3%.
I've had more than 140,000 downloads at SS down the years bringing me almost $71,000 so it hurts to disable everything, but not as much as it hurts to see my commissions slashed by around 70%. Even that isn't enough for the greedy filth: in January they plan to cut my 10c commissions down to 3c. That's a 92% pay cut!!!! Who do they think they are kidding?
I really feel quite sick over this. It's possibly worse than anything Istock has ever done to us. You've screwed up big-time SS. With considerable difficulty I will refrain from launching my first ever foul-mouthed tirade, what I would call you is probably worse than you could even imagine.
PS: I see in posts from people who are following this more closely that they have apparently slashed subscription prices and the 10c sales are more than 30% and are some sort of floor under the commission rate - but I don't care, I'm only interested in the monthly payouts that won't be coming any more, the grossly insulting commission structure/levels and the humiliating way they are treating us all.
Great to see you posting again, shame it had to be over this.
100% agree. This is much worse than it even seems on the surface. Actual percentages are going to be much, much lower than advertised as we know they were previously making money hand over fist on just unused dls in the big subs packs.
-
The 10 cents are a floor they kindly instated for THIS YEAR. No promises were made what happens next year.
-
I am still baffled by the brutal application of a new payment system unilaterally adopted by SS and I am also frustrated to see the really poor payment of the 10 cents applied in the majority of sales in this part of the month.
I am tempted to suspend sales and / or cancel the account.
For now I will just not upload new images and videos.
From what I have read there is no possibility to cancel all your work with a single click.
I therefore developed this strategy that can allow me to give SS at least a little annoyance without compromising a possible resumption of uploads in case there was an improvement in the payment system for us collaborators.
In concrete terms, therefore:
- (maybe!) I only upload new editorial material (because Adobe doesn't accept it);
- I start to upload the oldest photos that I have and which are of poor quality.
By uploading old photos (some of which are already in my portfolio) I hope to annoy their recruiters who will have to take the trouble to examine and possibly accept photos that had previously been discarded,
I realize that all this can only tickle SS also because my portfolio is not very significant, but it is all that I now feel I can do.
(Sorry I don't speak English but I speak Italian. I used an online translator)
-
I am still baffled by the brutal application of a new payment system unilaterally adopted by SS and I am also frustrated to see the really poor payment of the 10 cents applied in the majority of sales in this part of the month.
I am tempted to suspend sales and / or cancel the account.
For now I will just not upload new images and videos.
From what I have read there is no possibility to cancel all your work with a single click.
I therefore developed this strategy that can allow me to give SS at least a little annoyance without compromising a possible resumption of uploads in case there was an improvement in the payment system for us collaborators.
In concrete terms, therefore:
- (maybe!) I only upload new editorial material (because Adobe doesn't accept it);
- I start to upload the oldest photos that I have and which are of poor quality.
By uploading old photos (some of which are already in my portfolio) I hope to annoy their recruiters who will have to take the trouble to examine and possibly accept photos that had previously been discarded,
I realize that all this can only tickle SS also because my portfolio is not very significant, but it is all that I now feel I can do.
(Sorry I don't speak English but I speak Italian. I used an online translator)
Actualy it's 4 clicks -> Account settings/-> Licensing options, click "NO/NO" for image and video sales, click save settings. Don't sell yourself for $0,10 per image.
-
Actualy it's 4 clicks -> Account settings/-> Licensing options, click "NO/NO" for image and video sales, click save settings. Don't sell yourself for $0,10 per image.
[/quote]
This is true, but from what other collaborators say they have done so it seems that SS continues to sell the images and probably pocket 100% of the sale.
To permanently delete photos you have to do it for single photo !!!
Unless that's true
-
Actualy it's 4 clicks -> Account settings/-> Licensing options, click "NO/NO" for image and video sales, click save settings. Don't sell yourself for $0,10 per image.
This is true, but from what other collaborators say they have done so it seems that SS continues to sell the images and probably pocket 100% of the sale.
To permanently delete photos you have to do it for single photo !!!
Unless that's true
[/quote]
It just takes a little while for the database to update. If you disable you will see your number of images go down soon after.
-
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 don’t 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.
A variation on your idea Michele - I thought I'd start a nice little Show and Tell thread on the Shutterstock forums. Twitter to follow. All my 2610 images opted out this morning.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100375-soon-to-be-deactivated-images/
-
Actualy it's 4 clicks -> Account settings/-> Licensing options, click "NO/NO" for image and video sales, click save settings. Don't sell yourself for $0,10 per image.
This is true, but from what other collaborators say they have done so it seems that SS continues to sell the images and probably pocket 100% of the sale.
To permanently delete photos you have to do it for single photo !!!
Unless that's true
It just takes a little while for the database to update. If you disable you will see your number of images go down soon after.
[/quote]
That was exactly my fear. As I don't trust them anymore, I deleted my images instead.
-
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 don’t 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.
Excellent idea !!!
-
Just a question...
I disabled my portfolio and if you follow the SS link in my signature you can see that there are no active images there.
Also in SS search engine the images dont show up.
But, the links to the images are still working, so the are accessible from pinterest or google search etc.
So I am wondering if they will eventually vanish in a while, are they being counted as active images in SS database, can they still be downloaded?
For example:
If the count of my images i already 0 this link shouldn't be working.
What is the situation for you that disabled your portfolio before, are your image links still working ?
-
I'am not gona disable my port, but i stop uploading for a while
First i want to wait and see how this turns out
In the first week i had a rpd for subs of 31 cent (before 25 cent)
So i think whit the new structure i can earn more
-
I'am not gona disable my port, but i stop uploading for a while
First i want to wait and see how this turns out
In the first week i had a rpd for subs of 31 cent (before 25 cent)
So i think whit the new structure i can earn more
Then you just got lucky with the first few sub sales.
It looks like not even level 6 contributors will make 0.31 avarage on sub sales
-
But in my opinion the idea of sending my photos with which I started making microstock, the majority of which are invalid, together with some duplicate photos if it were practiced by many would put SS in difficulty.
At worst they are selling photos for which 10 cents could be a good price
-
But in my opinion the idea of sending my photos with which I started making microstock, the majority of which are invalid, together with some duplicate photos if it were practiced by many would put SS in difficulty.
At worst they are selling photos for which 10 cents could be a good price
No point in submitting duplicates, they seem to have an efficient system to filter out similar submissions. Even if you make little changes to the picture it will be automatically rejected as too similar
-
No point in submitting duplicates, they seem to have an efficient system to filter out similar submissions. Even if you make little changes to the picture it will be automatically rejected as too similar
[/quote]
I am about to upload a first collection of about 30 invalid photos.
There is likely to be some duplicate but almost certain that they were rejected at the time.
I will tell you later what outcome they had.
I am so disappointed by these SS jackals that even at the cost of wasting a lot of time I would like to throw a lot of that crap on him !!!
-
My RPD for subs in June is 0.23. We are talking 500+ subs / day here. Its a Bad joke.
-
So I am wondering if they will eventually vanish in a while, are they being counted as active images in SS database, can they still be downloaded?
For example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/computer-designed-highly-detailed-grunge-frame-88245046 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/computer-designed-highly-detailed-grunge-frame-88245046)
If the count of my images i already 0 this link shouldn't be working.
What is the situation for you that disabled your portfolio before, are your image links still working ?
Your image shows up in my buyer's account. So yes, I believe that I'm able to license your image right now if I wanted to.
Which is another thing - has Shutterstock any idea how many of us are buyers of stock images too? Clearly we won't be sourcing images from Shutterstock going forwards. Did the same thing to iStock when they played stupid games too.
-
* they were very fast !!!!
In about 3 hours they examined 61 of my photos (poor !!!) dating back to my approach to the microstock world, and they rejected about 50% of them.
It would be completely unlikely that any of those accepted could ever be downloaded unless some customer pushed by a compulsion due to the cost of a subscription select it.
However, sales continue at $ 0.10 ~ $ 0.14.
I wait a few more days before unplugging.
But what a disappointment SS !!!!!!!!
-
I'am not gona disable my port, but i stop uploading for a while
First i want to wait and see how this turns out
In the first week i had a rpd for subs of 31 cent (before 25 cent)
So i think whit the new structure i can earn more
Then you just got lucky with the first few sub sales.
It looks like not even level 6 contributors will make 0.31 avarage on sub sales
Most of my downloads are from the Netherlands
My guess (and hope) that those customers use smaller subscripton packages
So i hope that, this trend continue for me
-
Just a question...
I disabled my portfolio and if you follow the SS link in my signature you can see that there are no active images there.
Also in SS search engine the images dont show up.
But, the links to the images are still working, so the are accessible from pinterest or google search etc.
So I am wondering if they will eventually vanish in a while, are they being counted as active images in SS database, can they still be downloaded?
For example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/computer-designed-highly-detailed-grunge-frame-88245046 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/computer-designed-highly-detailed-grunge-frame-88245046)
If the count of my images i already 0 this link shouldn't be working.
What is the situation for you that disabled your portfolio before, are your image links still working ?
The links work but you can't download the image. Click the download button and you'll see a message "There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance"
This just isn't an issue. There is no need to delete images - disabling the portfolio works
-
Your image shows up in my buyer's account. So yes, I believe that I'm able to license your image right now if I wanted to.
No - did you try to click the download button? You'll get a message that says
"There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance"
-
Just disabled everything. It means stock is more or less pointless for me now - well, it has been since June 1, with something like a 60% cut in commission earnings (thanks for the birthday present, SS!)....
Glad to see you - sad it's for this reason.
There are lots of charts that explain the new royalties if you care to dig into the details, but the bottom line is that it's a massive royalty cut and they're siphoning off contributor earnings to fund expensive CEOs & other execs, a 17¢ a share dividend later this month, and better-looking profit numbers to keep Wall Street happy when they announce their Q2 earnings some time in early August.
Stan Pavlovsky (new CEO) should go back to being a financial analyst as he's useless as a strategist. I hope Jon Oringer is having sleepless nights wondering if he's turning Shutterstock into another of the failed businesses that he used to say were the only "jobs" he'd had before starting Shutterstock.
It's all shameful. Check the #BoycottShutterstock hashtag on twitter if you want to read more about people who are doing what you're doing and disabling their portfolios in protest. There's a chance this may make changes happen, but at least it sends a signal to the remaining agencies that snatching from contributor royalties is a very bad idea :)
-
The links work but you can't download the image. Click the download button and you'll see a message "There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance"
This just isn't an issue. There is no need to delete images - disabling the portfolio works
[/quote]
Can you tell me if it will be sufficient to rehabilitate the sale for the recovery of the portfolio?
Obviously if there were positive news for us collaborators from SS
-
Just disabled around 5k images... too many .10 cent sales!! #boycottshutterstock #shutterstockboycott #saynotoShutterstock
-
Just a question...
I disabled my portfolio and if you follow the SS link in my signature you can see that there are no active images there.
Also in SS search engine the images dont show up.
But, the links to the images are still working, so the are accessible from pinterest or google search etc.
So I am wondering if they will eventually vanish in a while, are they being counted as active images in SS database, can they still be downloaded?
For example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/computer-designed-highly-detailed-grunge-frame-88245046 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/computer-designed-highly-detailed-grunge-frame-88245046)
If the count of my images i already 0 this link shouldn't be working.
What is the situation for you that disabled your portfolio before, are your image links still working ?
The links work but you can't download the image. Click the download button and you'll see a message "There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance"
This just isn't an issue. There is no need to delete images - disabling the portfolio works
Thanks, that probably settles it
Btw..
When I click download I get create your free account note and red username and psw fields event though Im allready logged in as contributor in same browser.
-
Thanks, that probably settles it
Btw..
When I click download I get create your free account note and red username and psw fields event though Im allready logged in as contributor in same browser.
But that window wants you to register as buyer. Buyer and contributor accounts are not connected in any ways
-
Thanks, that probably settles it
Btw..
When I click download I get create your free account note and red username and psw fields event though Im allready logged in as contributor in same browser.
But that window wants you to register as buyer. Buyer and contributor accounts are not connected in any ways
I have a buyer account and a contributor account. You can do both so you can see both sides of the Shutterstock site.
I was referring to what happens when logged in to my buyer account
-
The links work but you can't download the image. Click the download button and you'll see a message "There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance"
This just isn't an issue. There is no need to delete images - disabling the portfolio works
Can you tell me if it will be sufficient to rehabilitate the sale for the recovery of the portfolio?
Obviously if there were positive news for us collaborators from SS
[/quote]
I am not sure I understand the question.
If the question is whether you can turn your images back on again and resume sales, I did that once before in 2011 after I returned to being independent following 3 years as an iStock exclusive. It worked fine then, and I assume it does not, but my portfolio is currently "off" so I haven't tested it in 2020
-
The links work but you can't download the image. Click the download button and you'll see a message "There was an issue with your request. Please try again, or Contact us if you need further assistance"
This just isn't an issue. There is no need to delete images - disabling the portfolio works
Can you tell me if it will be sufficient to rehabilitate the sale for the recovery of the portfolio?
Obviously if there were positive news for us collaborators from SS
I am not sure I understand the question.
If the question is whether you can turn your images back on again and resume sales, I did that once before in 2011 after I returned to being independent following 3 years as an iStock exclusive. It worked fine then, and I assume it does not, but my portfolio is currently "off" so I haven't tested it in 2020
[/quote]
OK! Grazie
-
Thanks, that probably settles it
Btw..
When I click download I get create your free account note and red username and psw fields event though Im allready logged in as contributor in same browser.
But that window wants you to register as buyer. Buyer and contributor accounts are not connected in any ways
Thats why I assumed Jo Ann has buyers account.
-
I hope Jon Oringer is having sleepless nights wondering if he's turning Shutterstock into another of the failed businesses that he used to say were the only "jobs" he'd had before starting Shutterstock.
Hi again Jo Ann. I really doubt that he is troubled by what's going on. Frankly, if I'd made tens of millions out of something and had them safely stashed away I wouldn't be too bothered about whether it was starting to go wrong (I'm not really that nice). It does look as if he is shifting his stash out of SS shares into something more reliable ... like cash.
-
Something a bit ironic in all this is that I had also first learned about the pay cut from the email I received from SS about a week ago, but I didn’t actually think that much of it or about it in detail at the time (for whatever reason). Maybe I was busy, or maybe I was even distracted by something else at the moment, but somehow I even almost managed to forgot about it.
Then, around the 2nd of June, I decided to check in on my SS sales for the last 5-6 days, which is something I often do. That’s when I saw the $0.10 royalties had started coming into my account and that’s when it really sunk in. Then, and I don’t think it took more than another 30 seconds, before I opened up the settings in my SS account and disabled my portfolio completely. It was as fast as that and it was as if something that I had never even considered before was then suddenly decided for me in the blink of an eye. I didn’t really care to hear what might even be the reason behind it. I just simply decided right then and there that me and my pictures are worth more than that. And it was only after I disabled my portfolio that I came here onto this site and realized there was already a big movement about it and that so many other people were also pulling out of SS en masse like I did. I didn’t actually think the decision I made so quickly would have been so equally instinctive for so many other people too. That was my underestimation, but it was deeply comforting to see that I was by far not alone in my thinking.
I do realize though there are also a lot of contributors on SS who have much larger portfolios than me, who are heavily invested in their content, and who really rely on the SS income to put food on the table. For those of you I hail, you truly have my sympathies because it’s horrible to be pushed into a position where you feel you need to allow yourself to be exploited only because you have no other choice. My heart definitely goes out to you all.
I do hope though that from all of this something great will emerge from the ashes which will allow everyone to regain their dignity and income as image creators in this industry that has been on the downhill for everyone for nearly a decade. Let’s see what happens and try and remain positive for the moment. It’s only been a few days that things have begun to really percolate and maybe it will start to boil over in a positive way very soon. This to me feels like this could finally be the thing that’s big enough to cause the paradigm to shift in a positive way for the valuable creators in an industry where there has been much needed change for so very very long. The revolution has begun!
-
I've read so many times that contributors thought nothing was happening until January 1 and then were horrified when they saw what was going on with June royalties.
The sharp slap in the face of 10¢ or 12¢ royalties for people who were feeling good 'cause they were level 4, 5 or 6 and thought they could ride out the year before deciding anything had a pretty dramatic effect.
-
I've read so many times that contributors thought nothing was happening until January 1 and then were horrified when they saw what was going on with June royalties.
The sharp slap in the face of 10¢ or 12¢ royalties for people who were feeling good 'cause they were level 4, 5 or 6 and thought they could ride out the year before deciding anything had a pretty dramatic effect.
That's very understandable i think. Just by reading the mail i also though it was going to be a raise for now. As it said i will get 35%, and it was known that Shutterstock used to pay out around 30% buyers' payments to contributors. (including subscriptions).
The email did not state that we won't be compensated for unused subscription quotas.
So i thought i would get an around 16% pay rise till the end of the year, and a the first part of next year will be a bit worse
-
I've read so many times that contributors thought nothing was happening until January 1 and then were horrified when they saw what was going on with June royalties.
The sharp slap in the face of 10¢ or 12¢ royalties for people who were feeling good 'cause they were level 4, 5 or 6 and thought they could ride out the year before deciding anything had a pretty dramatic effect.
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've read so many times that contributors thought nothing was happening until January 1 and then were horrified when they saw what was going on with June royalties.
The sharp slap in the face of 10¢ or 12¢ royalties for people who were feeling good 'cause they were level 4, 5 or 6 and thought they could ride out the year before deciding anything had a pretty dramatic effect.
That's very understandable i think. Just by reading the mail i also though it was going to be a raise for now. As it said i will get 35%, and it was known that Shutterstock used to pay out around 30% buyers' payments to contributors. (including subscriptions).
The email did not state that we won't be compensated for unused subscription quotas.
So i thought i would get an around 16% pay rise till the end of the year, and a the first part of next year will be a bit worse
From the Shutterstock forums on May 26th, the day the email came out, by getting some questions answered, the picture was clear (Kate, the moderator, updated the original posts to spell out the details) that day for anyone who wanted to see. I've used screen grabs as some of my other posts were deleted and one never knows what may get "disappeared" over time
-
I've read so many times that contributors thought nothing was happening until January 1 and then were horrified when they saw what was going on with June royalties.
The sharp slap in the face of 10¢ or 12¢ royalties for people who were feeling good 'cause they were level 4, 5 or 6 and thought they could ride out the year before deciding anything had a pretty dramatic effect.
That's very understandable i think. Just by reading the mail i also though it was going to be a raise for now. As it said i will get 35%, and it was known that Shutterstock used to pay out around 30% buyers' payments to contributors. (including subscriptions).
The email did not state that we won't be compensated for unused subscription quotas.
So i thought i would get an around 16% pay rise till the end of the year, and a the first part of next year will be a bit worse
From the Shutterstock forums on May 26th, the day the email came out, by getting some questions answered, the picture was clear (Kate, the moderator, updated the original posts to spell out the details) that day for anyone who wanted to see. I've used screen grabs as some of my other posts were deleted and one never knows what may get "disappeared" over time
Not long after the email i've read the details on this forum. I just want to say that from the official email it was not obvious that sub sales will go that low
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If the thumbnails are still showing on shutterstock's site, wonder if we should make DMCA Takedowns for each image? :D
-
JOIN THE FORCES:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/stop-uploading-to-ss-join-the-action/ (https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/stop-uploading-to-ss-join-the-action/)
ps for your info: 73 dumb heads will do nothing.
-
https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false
Badass post if true
-
You can check it out on tueasdy, he's on SS by his name, easy to find his port
-
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
-
https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false
Badass post if true
This is incredible stuff
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
-
https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false (https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false)
Badass post if true
He just announced he did it on the Shutterstock forum.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/?do=findComment&comment=1850739 (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/?do=findComment&comment=1850739)
Here's the portfolio. Let's give the system a few hours / days :)
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
Respect!
-
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
-
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.
-
It's really encouraging to see all those big timers doing that, quite inspiring.
-
https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false (https://m.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285?view=permalink&id=268154907755769&anchor_composer=false)
Badass post if true
He just announced he did it on the Shutterstock forum.
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/?do=findComment&comment=1850739 (https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/?do=findComment&comment=1850739)
Here's the portfolio. Let's give the system a few hours / days :)
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
Respect!
That’s a nice port, high value.
-
"together we stand, divided we fall" (cit.)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285)
-
my two cents on the 10 cents.
https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/
enjoy :)
-
my two cents on the 10 cents.
https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/ (https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/)
enjoy :)
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)/ (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.
-
my two cents on the 10 cents.
https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/ (https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/)
enjoy :)
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)/ (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
the Braveheart of grade school bog roll.
;D
-
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!
-
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!
I was trying to convince everyone to measure how much bad it is, never trying to convince anyone whether this is good or bad, because only the January reset alone makes it bad enough. But I received everyone's response by now, I'm done in here. Good luck to everyone with their peeing against the wind tactics.
-
Good luck and be watchful if the wind changes direction as all those thousands "peeing against the wind" might splash you if you stayed on the wrong place.
-
seanh!! same here Level-5 and deleted my port of close to 8000 files and 1200 videos..the problem as I see it is that once this business start there is no way back it just keeps going on and on and the point of remaining is just worthless! you accept this and the next step is images free of charge( which is already going on anyway).
The present SS don't give a * about anything they see stolen images they dont care the Tech side is useless the uploading process and reviewing is terrible.
They certainly show us a perfect way how to NOT run a company!
-
I have send email to shutterstock now over three weeks, but I get no answer. I trying to deactivate my contributor account. I have send email to privacy(at)shutterstock.com address. Have anyone same problem?
-
We need to act faster.
Tune in, Turn Off, Drop out.
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
I think it just takes time until they are gradually removed from search indexing?
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
I think it just takes time until they are gradually removed from search indexing?
Deleting a portfolio of 400,000 images, one image at a time, is certainly not feasible in a few days... Especially since he will certainly have other things to do.
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
I think it just takes time until they are gradually removed from search indexing?
Deleting a portfolio of 400,000 images, one image at a time, is certainly not feasible in a few days... Especially since he will certainly have other things to do.
He might have assistants.
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
I think it just takes time until they are gradually removed from search indexing?
Deleting a portfolio of 400,000 images, one image at a time, is certainly not feasible in a few days... Especially since he will certainly have other things to do.
I deleted mine one by one, took about 15 minutes to do 100. When I deleted 100 in the morning, it even took until the end of the day for the server to refresh and show the right number.
-
My images are gone from SS. I just wanted to say to everyone keep up the pressure, companies bank on it dying out but where ever you can on social media give them some love. I just commented on an SS ad on FB. Everyone is doing great! Keep in mind post people give up or quit right before success.
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
Unfortunately, I think he is the only one of big producers to do so.
-
I see Yakov Filimonov hasn't disabled his portfolio.
He's deleting all his images!
410,000 pictures a few days ago, 120,000 now!!!
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/jackf)
I think it just takes time until they are gradually removed from search indexing?
Deleting a portfolio of 400,000 images, one image at a time, is certainly not feasible in a few days... Especially since he will certainly have other things to do.
I deleted mine one by one, took about 15 minutes to do 100. When I deleted 100 in the morning, it even took until the end of the day for the server to refresh and show the right number.
At a ryhthm of 100 every 15 minutes it would take you 42 days to erase 400,000 photos... Considering that you never stop…
Yes, he probably has a few assistants, or he just asked Shutterstock to do the job, which they probably do as slowly as possible
-
Didn't he just disable them?
-
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!
I was trying to convince everyone to measure how much bad it is, never trying to convince anyone whether this is good or bad, because only the January reset alone makes it bad enough. But I received everyone's response by now, I'm done in here. Good luck to everyone with their peeing against the wind tactics.
I don't need you or your wonky stats to tell me how bad my sales are. All I have to do is look at my sales and the 60% plus decline.
-
Didn't he just disable them?
Disabling means that they are not available for licensing/sales but are still kept on the servers, right? So once you re-enable it in the acciun t settings, they should normally come back all, correct?
Not that I'm planning to re-enable my port anytime soon, just for information.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Didn't he just disable them?
Disabling means that they are not available for licensing/sales but are still kept on the servers, right? So once you re-enable it in the acciun t settings, they should normally come back all, correct?
Not that I'm planning to re-enable my port anytime soon, just for information.
Correct. I did that in 2011 when I left iStock exclusivity & returned to being an independent. All my old accounts were still there, including Shutterstock
-
Hmm... maybe when you reactivate your portfolio, as a punishment, you'll have to start again from level 1...
(I'm kidding... but you never know with these little %$#$%)
-
Hmm... maybe when you reactivate your portfolio, as a punishment, you'll have to start again from level 1...
(I'm kidding... but you never know with these little %$#$%)
Or maybe, if you reactivate the portfolio, these are treated as fresh images and all the popular images are now nowhere available in SS top pages.
-
Hmm... maybe when you reactivate your portfolio, as a punishment, you'll have to start again from level 1...
(I'm kidding... but you never know with these little %$#$%)
Or maybe, if you reactivate the portfolio, these are treated as fresh images and all the popular images are now nowhere available in SS top pages.
They don't, can say this from experience a few months back. Like deactivation, it takes some time for the images to reappear but they regain their places in search
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk